January 1997 PACIFIC LAMPREY RESEARCH AND RESTORATION ANNUAL

January 1997

PACIFIC LAMPREY RESEARCH AND RESTORATIONANNUAL REPORT 1997

THIS IS INVISIBLE TEXT TO KEEP VERTICAL ALIGNMENT

THIS IS INVISIBLE TEXT TO KEEP VERTICAL ALIGNMENT THIS IS INVISIBLE TEXT TO KEEP VERTICAL ALIGNMENT THIS IS INVISIBLE TEXT TO KEEP VERTICAL ALIGNMENT THIS IS INVISIBLE TEXT TO KEEP VERTICAL ALIGNMENT THIS IS INVISIBLE TEXT TO KEEP VERTICAL ALIGNMENT

Annual Report 1997

DOE/BP-39067-3

This report was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S. Department of Energy, as part ofBPA's program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation ofhydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries. The views of this report are the author's and do notnecessarily represent the views of BPA.

This document should be cited as follows: Jackson,Aaron D., Tribal Fisheries Program, Department of Natural Resources, Confederated Tribes of the UmatillaIndian Reservation, Douglas R. Hatch, Blaine L. Parker, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, David A.Close, Martin S. Fitzpatrick, Hiram Li, Oregon Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Fisheries andWildlife, Oregon State University, U. S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish andWildlife, Project Number 1994-026, Contract Number 95BI39067, 97 electronic pages (BPA Report DOE/BP-39067-3)

This report and other BPA Fish and Wildlife Publications are available on the Internet at:

http://www.efw.bpa.gov/cgi-bin/efw/FW/publications.cgi

For other information on electronic documents or other printed media, contact or write to:

Bonneville Power AdministrationEnvironment, Fish and Wildlife Division

P.O. Box 3621905 N.E. 11th Avenue

Portland, OR 97208-3621

PACIFIC LAMPREY RESEARCH AND RESTORATION

ANNUAL REPORT 1997

Prepared by:

Aaron D. Jackson

Tribal Fisheries ProgramDepartment of Natural Resources

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian ReservationPendleton, OR

Douglas R. HatchBlaine L. Parker

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish CommissionPortland, Oregon

David A. CloseMartin S. Fitzpatrick

Hiram Li

Oregon Cooperative Fishery Research UnitDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife

Oregon State UniversityCorvallis, OR

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of EnergyBonneville Power Administration

Division of Fish and WildlifeP.O. Box 3621

Portland, Oregon 97208-3621

Project Number 94-026Contract Number 95BI39067

2

MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PART (A)- PAST AND PRESENT ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION . . . . . 4

PART (B)- ABUNDANCE MONITORING IN MAINSTEM COLUMBIA ANDSNAKE RIVERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

PART (C)- ADULT PASSAGE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

3

INTRODUCTION

The once abundant stocks of Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) aboveBonneville Dam are currently depressed (Close et al. 1995). It is likely that many of thesame factors that led to the decline of wild stocks of Columbia River Pacific salmon andsteelhead have impacted Pacific lamprey populations as well. The Pacific lamprey is animportant part of the food web of North Pacific ecosystems, both as predator and prey(Semekula and Larkin 1968; Beamish 1980; Pike 1951; Galbreath 1979; Roffe and Mate1984; Merrell 1959; Wolf and Jones 1989). Lamprey are a valuable subsistence food andcultural resource for Native American Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. DepressedPacific lamprey runs have impacted treaty secured fishing opportunities by forcing tribalmembers to gather this traditional food in lower Columbia River locations.

The Pacific Lamprey Research and Restoration Project, funded by BonnevillePower Administration, is a cooperative effort between the Confederated Tribes of theUmatilla Indian Reservation, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, andOregon State University with the goal to increase Pacific lamprey stocks above BonnevilleDam. The initial objectives of the project are to determine the past and current abundanceof Pacific lamprey stocks in major mid Columbia tributaries and at various hydroelectricfacilities, and to determine factors limiting Pacific lamprey abundance and distribution.Ultimately, Pacific lamprey restoration plans will be developed and implemented.

Part (A)-CTUIR1) determine past and present abundance and distribution in NE Oregon and SEWashington tributaries.2) determine limiting habitat factors.

Part (B)-CRITFC1) adult abundance monitoring at Columbia and Snake River dams.2) juvenile abundance monitoring at Columbia and Snake River dams.3) juvenile passage impediments and needed improvements at Columbia and Snake River dams.

Part (C)- OSU1) adult passage impediments and needed improvements at Columbia and Snake Riverdams.2) juvenile passage impediments and needed improvements at Columbia and Snake Riverdams.

4

Pacific Lamprey Research and Restoration

Part (A)

Historic and Current Pacific Lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) Abundance and PossibleReasons for Population Decline, Based on Oral Interviews, Review of Records, Literature,

and Presence/Absence Sampling, in CTUIR Ceded Areas of Northeast Oregon andSoutheast Washington Subbasins of the Columbia River.

Prepared by:

Aaron D. Jackson

Tribal Fisheries ProgramDepartment of Natural Resources

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian ReservationPendleton, Oregon

5

ABSTRACT

Based on oral interviews with tribal informants, current and former state andfederal fisheries personnel, review of records and literature, and presence/absencesampling, it is apparent that Pacific lamprey were once abundant in ceded area streams ofthe Umatilla Indian Reservation (John Day, Umatilla, Walla Walla, Tucannon, and GrandeRonde subbasins). Current population levels appear severely depressed in all subbasinsexcept possibly the John Day, which could be classified as depressed. The most probablereasons for population declines include: dams, chemical treatment activities, declininghabitat quality (e.g. high water temperatures, poor water quality, low instream flows), andangle-iron in fishways to prevent lamprey passage.

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS-PART (A)

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................8

METHODS....................................................................................................................9

RESULTS/DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................11

JOHN DAY SUBBASIN...........................................................................................11Historic Abundance:..............................................................................................11Current Abundance: ..............................................................................................11Presence/Absence Findings: ..................................................................................12Anthropogenic Habitat Alterations: .......................................................................13Discussion: ............................................................................................................15Recommendations:.................................................................................................15

UMATILLA SUBBASIN ..........................................................................................16Historic Abundance:..............................................................................................16Current Abundance: ..............................................................................................17Presence/Absence Findings: ..................................................................................18Anthropogenic Habitat Alterations: .......................................................................18Discussion: ............................................................................................................19Recommendations:.................................................................................................20

WALLA WALLA SUBBASIN..................................................................................20Historic Abundance:..............................................................................................20Current Abundance: ..............................................................................................20Presence/Absence Findings:………………………………………………………………. 21Anthropogenic Habitat Alterations: .......................................................................22Discussion: ............................................................................................................23Recommendations:.................................................................................................23

TUCANNON SUBBASIN ........................................................................................23Historic Abundance:..............................................................................................23Current Abundance: ..............................................................................................24Presence/Absence Findings: ..................................................................................24Anthropogenic Habitat Alterations: .......................................................................24Discussion: ............................................................................................................25Recommendations:.................................................................................................26

GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN................................................................................26Historic Abundance:..............................................................................................26Current Abundance: ..............................................................................................27Presence/Absence Findings: ..................................................................................27Anthropogenic Habitat Alterations: .......................................................................27

7

Discussion: ............................................................................................................29Recommendations:.................................................................................................29

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...........................................................................................30

LITERATURE CITED ...............................................................................................31

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ..........................................................................34

ACRONYMS...............................................................................................................36

APPENDIX A ..............................................................................................................37

APPENDIX B ..............................................................................................................38

APPENDIX C …………………………………………………………………………..42

8

INTRODUCTION

“The Pacific lamprey maintains a place of cultural significance in the Columbia andSnake River Basins. Tribal people of the Pacific Coast and interior Columbia Basin haveharvested these fish for subsistence, ceremonial, and medicinal purposes for manygenerations” (Close et al.1995).

Because of the severely depressed status of Pacific lamprey populations in cededarea streams above Bonneville Dam, tribal elders have discussed the restoration of “eels”in various ceded area streams with Umatilla Tribal Fisheries Staff for at least the last eightyears. This project was a direct result of their diligent efforts.

Before reintroduction or rehabilitation is feasible, it is critical to determine thecurrent status of indigenous Pacific lamprey populations in the John Day, Umatilla, WallaWalla, Tucannon, and Grande Ronde subbasins. Another important consideration was tounderstand the reasons for the decline in lamprey populations. The following informationrepresents the first two years of gathering past and current population data. Subsequentstudy years will build upon this effort and eventually lamprey restoration plans andrecommendations will be made for each subbasin.

9

METHODS

Past and Current Abundance

Phone and/or personal interviews were conducted with tribal informants and pastand current employees of various state and federal agencies who work or have worked inthe subject subbasin(s). Past and current records and literature were reviewed todocument past and current Pacific lamprey abundance and possible reasons for populationdecline in each subbasin.

Presence/Absence Surveys

Sampling Locations:

Thirty-six presence/absence sites were sampled throughout the John Day, Umatilla,and Walla Walla river subbasins. The Tucannon and Grande Ronde river subbasins werenot sampled in 1997 because ESA permits were not obtained. Streams sampled werechosen because historical information review (screen trap records, personalcommunications, biological survey data, historical literature) stated lamprey were onceabundant in these systems. Ammocoetes burrow into the mud along the margin of streamswhere they feed upon vegetable material (Clemens and Wilby 1967). Pacific lampreyammocoetes prefer silt/sand substrate in backwaters and quiet eddies of streams (Wydoskiand Whitney 1979), therefore sites that looked to represent habitat preferred by Pacificlamprey ammocoetes were chosen for sampling. Areas were also chosen for accessibilityto vehicles and supplies. Most sites that were sampled comprised of one or two habitattypes (i.e. lateral pool and glide). Sites sampled usually contained sand/silt substrate (>2”deep) in the margin areas of site and gravel/cobble/boulder material throughout the rest ofunit with slow water velocity. Lamprey require extended shock times before retractionfrom silt/sand substrate will occur (van de Wetering, pers. comm.). Based on observation,lamprey tend to burrow when shocking begins to avoid the electrical current. Afterextended shock times, lamprey retracted from substrate and were captured for measuringand identification. Standard volt (700-1000) and pulse (J-1) settings were usually used toperform sampling. Site conditions measured included: date sampled, site number, rivermile, habitat unit type, site dimensions (length x width x depth), water temperature, silttemperature, discharge, water clarity, volts and pulse used, and weather conditions. Noteswere added giving detailed description of sites, and photographs of sites were taken. When necessary, private landowners were contacted and permission was obtained prior tosampling.

Equipment Used:

A model 12-B Smith-Root electrofisher was utilized to perform sampling. Lamprey were captured with dipnets, placed in buckets and anethesized with MS-222(Ticaine Methanesulfonate). Once anethesized, lamprey were measured (tip of snout totip of tail), keyed to species, and checked for abnormalities. Lamprey were placed in

10

recovery buckets for 5-10 minutes and then released where the majority of catch wasmade.

Species Identification:

Species identification of Pacific lamprey was difficult. Juvenile Pacific lamprey andjuvenile western brook lamprey share many of the same physical characteristics. According to Wydoski and Whitney (1979), the distinguishing characteristic between thewestern brook and the Pacific lamprey is the pigment above and below the tip of the tail. The Pacific lamprey (Figure C-8) has a dark line above and below the tip of the tail,whereas, the western brook lamprey (Figure C-7) lacks pigment in the membranous tip ofthe caudal fin (transparent like). Although we found variation in the amount of pigment ofboth species, we utilized Wydoski and Whiteny’s methods for identifying each species.

11

RESULTS/DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATIONS

JOHN DAY SUBBASIN

Historic Abundance:

The John Day Subbasin has historically produced many species of salmonidsincluding: spring and fall races of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), summersteelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), red-band rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss), bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus), western-slope cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi), andmountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), and two species of lamprey: western brooklamprey (Lampetra richardsoni), and Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata).

Historic estimates of Pacific lamprey abundance are unavailable but according toClaire (ODFW, pers. comm.) they were once very numerous. This subbasin washistorically utilized for fishing purposes by the Umatilla, Columbia River, Pauite,Shoshone-Bannock, and Warm Springs Indian Tribes (A. Minthorn, pers. comm.). Thesubbasin was also utilized by the Rock Creek Indian Tribe (Swindell Report 1941). Although Celilo Falls was the major fishing site for Columbia Basin Tribes, the John DayRiver and tributaries supported a fishery at one time (Swindell Report 1941). The JohnDay River primarily was utilized for salmon and trout fishing but harvest of Pacificlamprey did occur within the subbasin (A. Minthorn, pers. comm.). The Middle and NorthForks were the most popular areas chosen for harvesting. Lane and Lane (1979) notedone area in the John Day River utilized by the Umatilla and Columbia River Tribes wasknown as “tuck-pus”, near Albert Phillipi Park. Salmon, eels, and whitefish wereharvested near this area. Camas Creek and the North Fork John Day were also noted asareas that eels were once harvested. Percy Brigham, CTUIR elder and fisherman, statedthat he harvested eels at the mouth of the John Day River, and at an area he called “littlefalls” on the John Day River.

Current Abundance:

The John Day Subbasin currently supports a remnant run of anadromous Pacificlamprey and non-anadromous western brook lamprey (Claire, pers. comm.). Althoughadult population levels are unknown, screen trap operators have observed a few Pacificlamprey in screen trap boxes. ODFW observed one dead adult Pacific lamprey in theNorth Fork John Day subbasin, near Texas Bar Creek, in the fall of 1997. The next mostrecent sighting of adult Pacific lamprey on the spawning grounds was in the spring of1992. Two live adults, two dead adults, and two redds were observed on the lower JohnDay River (RM 80), and a spawning pair of Pacific lamprey was also observed on a reddon the Middle Fork John Day River near river mile 65 (Claire, pers. comm.).

After a hydrochloric acid spill in 1990, it was estimated that 9500 Pacific lamprey(mostly ammocoetes) died in the North Fork John Day River.

In 1997, ODFW sampled 80 Pacific lamprey ammocoetes in Vincent Creek, atributary to the Middle Fork John Day River at RM 64.0. Thirty-six Pacific lampreyammocoetes were sampled in the upper mainstem of the John Day River (RM 273.5), and

12

two Pacific lamprey ammocoetes were sampled in Clear Creek (RM 1.0), a tributary toGranite Creek in the upper North Fork John Day River subbasin.

The John Day Subbasin produces the largest remaining run of wild spring chinooksalmon in the Columbia River Basin. Up to 4,000 wild spring chinook adults annuallyreturn to this system. Fifteen thousand to 40,000 adult wild steelhead also return to thissubbasin yearly (Claire, pers. comm.). Fall chinook salmon are extinct.

Currently, the John Day River supports a token tribal spring chinook salmonfishery each year. Over the last five years in the North Fork John Day drainage, anaverage of 25 spring chinook salmon were annually harvested by tribal members. Currently, no known tribal harvest of Pacific lamprey occurs in this subbasin.

Presence/Absence Findings:

Presence/absence sampling was conducted at 16 sites in the John Day Riversubbasin in 1997. Time constraints limited the amount of sampling that staff couldperform. Sampling will continue in 1998.

Six sites were sampled in Camas Creek, a tributary to the North Fork John DayRiver (Table B-3). Sites were located at RM 0.1, 1.2, 3.1, 4.2, 9.1, and 10.5. Temperatures for Camas Creek during electrofishing surveys (July 31-August 1, 1997)ranged from 19oC to 20oF. For sites sampled, an average of 1.1 fish/minute was captured. The highest density (3.4 fish/minute) was recorded at RM 10.5. The lowest density (0.0)was recorded at RM 0.1 and 4.2. A total of 221 (40 to 167mm) Pacific lampreyammocoetes were sampled (Figure C-3). Sixty-one percent of total lamprey captured inCamas Creek was at RM 10.5. This site had heavy silt/sand substrate (6-8” deep) on rightbank with slow water velocity. All lamprey captured in Camas Creek appeared to be ingood condition. The largest and smallest Pacific lamprey ammocoete captured in CamasCreek was at RM 1.2. No abnormalities were found on any lamprey captured. Samplingwill continue in 1998 to further document presence/absence of lamprey in the CamasCreek subbasin.

Three sites were sampled during August 25-26, 1997 in the North Fork John DayRiver. Sampling of more sites downstream was not possible because of instream workthat was taking place during this time period creating unfavorable water conditions forsampling. Sites were located at RM 69.8 (Backwater), 75.0 (Scour Pool), and 75.8(Lateral Pool). Water temperatures ranged from 16oC to 16.5oC during electrofishingsurveys. An average of 6.5 fish/minute was captured for all sites sampled in the NorthFork John Day River (Table B-3). The highest density (8.2 fish/minute) was recorded atRM 69.8. Silt depth at this site ranged from 6” to 8” deep with slow water velocity. Atotal of 178 (16 to 122mm) Pacific lamprey ammocoetes were captured (Figure C-4). Alllamprey were captured in margin habitat. Based on observation, all lamprey appeared tobe in good condition. No abnormalities were found on any lamprey captured.

In the mid to upper mainstem John Day River, 3 sites were sampled on August 4,1997. Sites were located at RM 226.1, 245.5, and 257.2. Both Pacific and western brookammocoetes were found at two of these sites (RM 226.1 and 245.5). Lamprey werefound in the margin areas of sites. At RM 226.1 the ratio of Pacific lamprey to westernbrook lamprey was 1.3:1. At RM 245.5 the ratio of Pacific lamprey to western brook

13

lamprey was 1.2:1. Based on observation, both species appeared to be in good condition.

Two sites were sampled in the Middle Fork John Day River on August 5, 1997. Sites were located at RM 41.5 (Glide) and 65.0 (Lateral Pool). Instream work duringsurvey period prevented further presence/absence sampling. Water temperatures rangedfrom 17.5oC to 19oC. A total of 47 (17 to 138mm) Pacific lamprey ammocoetes weresampled. All lamprey were found in the margin areas of sites. At RM 41.5 a density of7.5 fish/minute was recorded. At RM 65.0 a density of 5.7 fish/minute was recorded. Based on observation, all lamprey captured appeared to be in good condition.

Two sites were sampled for presence/absence in the South Fork John Day River. At RM 9.0 (Glide) a density of 3.5 fish/minute were recorded. This site had silt 1-2”deep, with a water temperature of 20oC. At RM 29.1 (Lateral Pool) no lamprey werecaptured at this site. Site is located directly above Izee Falls, a natural passage barrier thatcould be impacting adult lamprey migration.

Anthropogenic Habitat Alterations:

Adult Pacific lamprey prefer low gradient stream sections, where gravel isdeposited, for spawning (Kan 1975). Historically, spawning Pacific lamprey were oftenobserved while conducting steelhead spawning ground surveys and often spawn in similarhabitat (Claire, pers. comm.; Witty, pers. comm.). The ammocoetes are usually found incold water (Mallatt 1983). It seems the habitat requirements for Pacific lamprey duringmost freshwater life history stages are similar to those preferred by salmonids. Thus,degradation of freshwater habitat that has affected salmonid abundance and distributionhas probably affected Pacific lamprey abundance and distribution. Historical descriptions of the John Day Subbasin indicate that the John Day Riverwas once a relatively stable river with good summer stream flows, good water quality, andheavy riparian cover. The North Fork tributaries were well wooded with aspen, poplar,and willow; had good streamflows, and good channel structure. These conditions arecommon in undisturbed river systems, which have a tendency to meander and form asequence of pools and riffles (ODFW et al. 1990).

In the late 1800’s mining became a major factor in the John Day system. Placermining channelized streams, left little shade, created high silt loads, and diverted flows. Inthe 1930’s and 40’s, dredge mining overturned the stream channels in the larger streams.This activity often changed stream courses, silted gravel, and destroyed riparian areas (ODFW et al. 1990).

Extensive timber harvest followed the discovery of gold in the John Day Subbasin. Roads were built on steep slopes, along streambanks, and across watersheds wheretimber was removed to supply growing communities (OWRD 1986).

Farming and ranching practices starting in the 1860’s and 1870’s led to loss ofnative riparian grasses in summer range areas in the upper watershed of the John DaySubbasin. Livestock foraged primarily on perennial grasses and shrub cover. During thistime many rangelands, under grazing pressure, converted from grass-forb-browseecosystems to weed-forb ecosystems. As grass rangelands declined in the subbasin, andwildfire suppression increased, the invasion of juniper and sage increased (ODFW et al.1990).

14

Today, livestock overgrazing, water withdrawals for irrigation, landownerclearing, road building, timber harvest, and stream channelization has created further fishhabitat problems by disturbing or destroying riparian vegetation and destabilizingstreambanks and watersheds.

Healthy riparian areas represent a vital part of the watershed and provide multiplefunctions – nutrient cycling, shading, bank stabilization, water storage, filtration andretention cover, and wildlife values (Stuart et al. 1988). Riparian habitat degradation isthe most serious habitat problem in the John Day River Subbasin with approximately 660degraded stream miles identified (ODFW et al. 1990). Degradation has resulted in lowsummer flows, high summer and low winter water temperatures, high spring flows,depressed beaver populations, accelerated bank erosion, excessive sedimentation, andreduced cover (ODFW et al. 1990). The Oregon Water Resource Department (1986)states that “activities in the last 125 years may have had a significant impact on the basin’scapacity to retain water and release it later in the season. Analysis of historical flow datasuggests that more precipitation falling in the subbasin during winter now runs offimmediately instead of staying in the subbasin. The use of the watershed’s resources tosatisfy consumer demand for forest products, grains, minerals, and other commoditiesprobably has increased winter runoff and decreased spring runoff.”

Warm water temperatures limit the downstream distribution of fingerling chinooksalmon in the Middle and North Forks during the summer (ODFW 1986). Claire statedthat marginal habitat suitable for rearing rainbow/steelhead during the summer months wasas follows: the entire Middle Fork, North Fork from Baldy Creek to the mouth of theMiddle Fork, South Fork from South Fork Falls to the mouth, and in the mainstem JohnDay River from the headwaters to Kimberly. Areas above the marginal areas are utilizedmostly by salmonids because of the cooler water temperatures during the critical summermonths. Juvenile rainbow/steelhead range further downstream in the John Day systemthan juvenile chinook salmon, because they have adapted to slightly higher watertemperatures. The habitat available for steelhead and spring chinook salmon may also beutilized by Pacific lamprey since they prefer similar habitat and water quality as salmonids.

Claire (ODFW, pers. comm.) stated that passage barriers within the John DaySubbasin have not been and are currently not significant enough to impede Pacificlamprey.

Many chemical treatments designed to eradicate rough fish have occurred invarious areas of the John Day Subbasin. From 1962 to 1982, chemical treatment projectstook place in the Middle Fork John Day River as follows: the lower 42 miles were treatedin 1966; the lower 3 miles were treated in 1973, the reach from Phipps Meadow toVincent Creek was treated and the lower 64.5 miles were treated with squoxin in 1974;and, the reach from Phipps Meadow to the mouth was treated with rotenone in 1982(ODFW 1986). Claire stated that most ammocoetes that were observed by ODFW werefollowing chemical treatment projects. When fish kill assessments were conducted, Pacificlamprey were not enumerated separately, instead they were included in the “other” and“rough fish” columns and lumped into one numerical number with other non-salmonids. Therefore, numbers that were eradicated through chemical treatment projects are notknown. Freshwater life history of larval Pacific lamprey may extend up to six years beforemigration to the ocean (Close et al. 1995). Therefore chemical treatment activities mayhave eliminated several age classes of juvenile lamprey per treatment.

15

In February 1990, a hydrochloric acid chemical spill occurred in the North ForkJohn Day River below the Camas Creek Bridge near the town of Dale. Approximately3,500 gallons of acid spilled into the river and killed an estimated 4,000 juvenile salmonand steelhead, 300 bull trout and 9,500 Pacific lamprey. Claire (ODFW, pers. comm.)stated that most lamprey killed by the hydrochloric acid were ammocoetes and the loss ofPacific lamprey was important because it may have been a significant portion of the totaloutmigrant population for that year.

Discussion:

Most information gathered on Pacific lamprey in the John Day Subbasin isanecdotal. Past and current estimates of population abundance are unavailable. Historicaldata was reviewed from 1955 to 1995. It appears, as in other subbasins, lamprey were notspecifically identified to species until recently (1995). Therefore, historical abundancedata likely included western brook lamprey as well as Pacific lamprey. Reviewed dataappeared to be inconsistant, and did not show evidence of annual or seasonal variation. For example, some years in various tributaries lamprey were recorded on an annual basis,but in other years for the same tributary no data was recorded for lamprey. Thisinconsistancy may have resulted from different personnel operating trapping devices overthe 40 year span of review, or that lamprey were not enumerated with other anadramousspecies. ODFW screen trap technicians and area biologists state that lamprey were oncevery numerous in this subbasin (Claire, pers. comm.; Moulton, pers. comm.). Accordingto Claire various agencies attempting to halt the decline of Pacific salmon and steelheaddid not have time to concern themselves with the decline of Pacific lamprey. Claire statedthat Pacific lamprey were very numerous in the John Day Subbasin prior to the completionof the John Day Dam in 1968. Claire also stated that lamprey populations have drasticallydeclined possibly due to inbasin habitat degradation and passage problems in the mainstemColumbia River.

In researching recent and historical weekly screen trap reports for this subbasin, itwas found that most lamprey enumerated were not keyed to species. Therefore, it is notknown if the lamprey observed were Pacific lamprey. Claire stated that he felt mostlamprey observed by screen trap technicians were Pacific lamprey ammocoetes. Gray andUnterwegner (ODFW, pers. comm.) stated lamprey identified by screen trap operatorswere keyed to species by the development of the eye, a fully developed eye wasconsidered a western brook lamprey.

Although John Day Basin lamprey populations are probably a fraction of pastabundance, the remaining population (like wild salmon and steelhead) is thought to be themost abundant today relative to other subbasins in this report. We will attempt to furtherdocument the current abundance of Pacific lamprey and investigate the feasibility of JohnDay Pacific lamprey as a candidate for a donor stock in subsequent years of this study.

Recommendations:

1) Request that ODFW enumerate lamprey at all trap boxes, key to species (whenpossible) at all trapping sites, and document capture locations and life history stage(ammocoetes vs. macrophthalmia / uneyed vs. eyed) of lamprey observed.

16

2) Continue to conduct random spot checks within the subbasin to determinepresence/absence.

3) Request that ODFW continue to document any adult Pacific lamprey observedduring stream surveys.

4) Collect Pacific lamprey ammocoetes for scientific analysis.

UMATILLA SUBBASIN

Historic Abundance:

In 1812, Wilson Price Hunt lead members of the Astor party down the UmatillaRiver on a voyage to the Columbia River. Wilson stated that the Indians called the river“Eo-u-tal-la (Umatilla), and it was abounded with beaver”. Historically, Pacific lampreywere abundant in this subbasin (H. Campbell, pers. comm.; N. Bean, pers. comm.; D.Heckeroth, pers. comm.; E. Quaempts, pers. comm.; A. Halfmoon, pers. comm.; D.Jackson, pers. comm.). Prior to the 1900’s, wild summer steelhead, chinook, coho andchum salmon were also present in the Umatilla River. Other wild salmonids historicallypresent were as follows: bull trout, red-band trout, and mountain whitefish. The UmatillaRiver was primarily utilized by the Umatilla, Cayuse, Nez Perce and Columbia RiverTribes (Swindell Report 1941, Lane 1979). Fishing for salmon, trout, whitefish and eelsby tribal members historically occurred throughout the subbasin. Much of the eelharvesting occurred at Three Mile Falls Dam and at this site prior to construction of thedam. Harvest also occurred in the North and South Forks (Swindell 1941; Lane andLane 1979).

Tina Jackson-Norvell and Donald Jackson, both CTUIR enrollees, rememberseeing Pacific lamprey near Cayuse, Oregon in the Umatilla River prior to chemicaltreatment during the summer months in the late 1960’s. Donald Jackson stated that hewitnessed ammocoetes and adult spawning lamprey near this site.

Virgil Bronson, CTUIR enrollee, stated that “after the second treatment in 1974,the south bank of the Umatilla River near Cayuse, Oregon had thousands upon thousandsof dead eels about 8” to 10” long”.

Alphonse Halfmoon, CTUIR enrollee, stated that he remembers seeingammocoetes “dying in the mud” during times of rotenone in the Umatilla River, andcollected trout that had died from the effects of rotenone.

Elias Quaempts, CTUIR enrollee, also stated that they used to catch lots of eelsuntil the fish poisonings started occurring in this subbasin. Mr. Quaempts used to fish atThree Mile Falls Dam for eels in the 1930’s, and said eels were abundant at that time inthe Umatilla River.

Armand Minthorn stated that Jasper Shippentower used to collect eels at themouth of Meacham Creek. Minthorn also stated that Jasper Shippentower witnessedspawning activity at this same site.

17

Jimmy Clark, CTUIR enrollee, stated that he observed juvenile and adult lampreyin Buckaroo Creek in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. Clark stated that tribal membersoccasionally collected Pacific lamprey in Buckaroo Creek, and Pacific lamprey utilized thestream for spawning and rearing.

Norman Been, former ODFW screen trap operator stated that “there were so manyadult Pacific lamprey in the Umatilla River that they were a nuisance”

Weekly screen trap reports for the Umatilla River Subbasin show that lampreywere not specifically enumerated from 1960 through 1969. From 1970 through 1973during May and June, 115 lamprey were enumerated near RM 49.5. Lamprey captured intraps were not keyed to specific species or life history stage. Information for 1974through 1985 was not available for review.

Current Abundance:

Pacific lamprey populations in the Umatilla River Subbasin are at a very low level. Zimmerman (CTUIR, pers comm.) stated that he observed one adult Pacific lamprey atWestland Irrigation Diversion (RM 27) in July of 1996, and also observed 12 adult Pacificlamprey in the ladder at Three Mile Falls Dam during dewatering in April of 1996. Zimmerman further stated that facility operation technicians have observed one or twoadult Pacific lamprey several times per year in the viewing window and ladder at ThreeMile Falls Dam during spring operations.

From December 1994 to May 1996, 68 lamprey (adults and juveniles) weresampled by ODFW (Knapp, pers. comm.) at rotary screw trap sites below Three MileFalls Dam, or at the West Extension Irrigation District canal (RM 3.7). Forty percent ofthe lamprey captured ranged from 130mm to 190mm. Eleven lamprey captured at WestExtension Irrigation District canal ranged from 450mm to 610mm.

Hoverson (CTUIR, pers. comm.) and the CTUIR electroshocking crew observedone live, one dead, and one near dead adult Pacific lamprey below Three Mile Falls Damin June, 1996.

The Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project hasoperated rotary screw traps in Meacham Creek and in the mainstem Umatilla River, bothabove and below the Meacham Creek confluence and at Barnhart at various times duringthe past six years and electroshocking crews have intensively sampled many areas of themainstem and lateral tributaries. No Pacific lamprey have ever been observed or capturedabove Three Mile Falls Dam.

In 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993, and 1994 records show that no juvenilelamprey were captured at any of the screen trap boxes in this subbasin. It may have beenthat lamprey were counted as “other fish”, and combined into one numerical number. Aslamprey appear in the screen trap boxes, rotary traps, and other sampling operations,ODFW will now start enumerating, and identifying each specimen captured.

Brian Kilgore, ODFW screen trap operator, stated that no lamprey were capturedin 1997 in the Umatilla River Basin.

In 1997, ODFW (Kern, pers. comm.) captured 298 juvenile Pacific lamprey inrotary screw trap operations near RM 1.0. Lamprey were keyed to species and lengthmeasurements were taken. Sizes ranged from 65 to 170mm.

18

In 1997, CTUIR (Zimmerman, pers. comm.) did not capture any adult Pacificlamprey in the operation of Three Mile Falls Dam.

Currently, the Umatilla River Subbasin does not support a tribal harvest of Pacificlamprey.


12 sites were sampled in the Umatilla River subbasin in 1997 (Table B-3). Only attwo sites, located below Three Mile Falls Dam, were lamprey found. At RM 3.6 (IsolatedPool) 4.8 fish/minute was recorded. This site had silt approximately 3” deep, and a watertemperature of 24oC. The next site (also RM 3.6) had a recorded density of 1.7fish/minute. This site had silt approximately 3” deep, and a water temperature of 24.5oC. Both sites lacked adequate riparian habitat. It is likely that a combination of low instreamsummer flows, inbasin habitat dedgradation, and passage through Three Mile Falls Damhave limited Pacific lamprey migration in this subbasin. Other sites sampled in theUmatilla River Basin had habitat that represented habitat preferred by adult and juvenilelamprey. No lamprey were found above Three Mile Falls Dam.

Extensive electroshocking was performed by the Umatilla Basin NaturalProduction Monitoring and Evaluation Project in 1997. This project did notcapture/observe any lamprey in the Umatilla River Basin.


Adult Pacific lamprey prefer low gradient stream sections, where gravel isdeposited, for spawning (Kan 1975). The ammocoetes are usually found in cold water(Mallatt 1983). It appears that the habitat requirements for Pacific lamprey during mostfreshwater life history stages are somewhat similar to those preferred by salmonids. Thus,degradation of freshwater habitat that has affected salmonid abundance and distributionhas probably affected Pacific lamprey abundance and distribution.

The Umatilla River begins on the west slope of the Blue Mountains and flowsnorthwesterly across the Umatilla Plateau for about 115 miles until its confluence with theColumbia River at RM 289. Historically, the Umatilla River headwaters contained severalspecies of trees; lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, white fir, grand fir,Engelmann spruce, and larch which provided shading in the headwaters. High elevationlands are dominated by forest with an understory of grass and brush; making watershedconditions generally good. Mid-elevation lands are characterized by strips of timbershading into brush and grass as elevation declines; large areas cleared for farmingoperations have created vast amounts of sediment (CTUIR et al. 1990).

Livestock grazing, road and railroad building, irrigation practices, timber harvest,and farming operations have led to the decline of adequate habitat for fish in the UmatillaRiver Subbasin. Riparian conditions, for the most part, are good in the upper headwatersas compared to the lower river conditions where farming operations and industries haveinvaded the riparian areas of the Umatilla River eliminating adequate shade in some areas(CTUIR et al. 1990).

Irrigation is the principal water use competing with fish production in the UmatillaRiver Subbasin. Until recent years many irrigation diversions were unscreened. Salmonids

19

would enter these unscreened diversions and become mortalities (CTUIR et al. 1990). Pacific lamprey ammocoetes probably suffered the same fate. The lower mainstem usuallyis dewatered during the irrigation season, impeding emigrant juvenile and late arrivingadults in the late spring, and early arriving adults in the fall (CTUIR et al. 1990). Thesepassage problems and the dewatering process likely had a negative affect on migratingjuvenile and adult lamprey.

Irrigation occurs throughout the mid to upper reaches of this subbasin. Mostirrigation diversions are registered to private individuals irrigating vegetable gardens andsmall pastures. Small pumps are utilized to obtain water, and surveys conducted showthat pumps appear to be screened. None of these irrigation diversions in the mid to uppermainstem Umatilla are believed to be passage barriers for Pacific lamprey.

If adequate instream flows are present, this subbasin has several passage barriersthat Pacific lamprey may have minimal or no trouble negotiating. The major artificialpassage barriers are: 1) Three Mile Falls Dam; 2) Westland irrigation diversion; 3) Feedcanal; and 4) Stanfield irrigation diversion. These are passage barriers for salmonids, andwere recently modified providing new fish ladders to improve salmonid passage. Thereare several artificial and natural passage barriers on lateral tributaries in this subbasin. These barriers would not affect lamprey passage.

Two chemical treatment projects occurred in the Umatilla River Subbasin. In 1967and 1974, 90 and 85 miles of stream were rotenoned to eliminate targeted areas of roughfish. Norman Been, former ODFW screens operator (1964 to 1995), stated that “therewere so many adult Pacific lamprey in the Umatilla River that they were a nuisance”. Heprimarily saw adults at Westland and Three Mile Falls Dam and viewed ammocoetes nearthe mouth of Meacham Creek prior to chemical treatment. Been further stated that he“saw few lamprey after the chemical treatment in 1967”, and that he “never saw anylamprey after the chemical treatment in 1974”. The chemical treatment is also importantdue to the fact that larval life of lamprey may extend up to six years in freshwater beforemigrating to the ocean (Close et al. 1995). These chemical treatment activities likelyeliminated several age classes of lamprey per treatment.

Chemical treatment projects were targeted at eliminating “rough fish”, but areasthat were rotenoned included areas that were known to be utilized by steelhead forspawning and juvenile rearing. These areas were also used by Pacific lamprey.

Discussion:

Several tribal members were interviewed about the decline of Pacific lamprey inthe Umatilla River Subbasin. Percy Brigham, Elias Quaempts, Alphonse Halfmoon, andArmand Minthorn, all CTUIR enrollees, believe that lamprey populations drasticallydeclined during times of fish poisonings. Most members interviewed also stated that theyharvested eels at Three Mile Falls Dam as children.

As was the case for salmon, complete water withdrawal for irrigation andunscreened diversions may have been a major factor in the decline of the Pacific lampreypopulation.

The Umatilla Basin salmon restoration program is now a model of success in theregion due to numerous efforts such as enhanced instream flows, passage improvements atladders and screens, instream/watershed enhancements and hatchery supplementation. If

20

common habitat factors lead to the demise of both salmon and lamprey and improvementsof those factors are resulting in salmon restoration, the Umatilla Basin may be an idealcandidate for lamprey restoration. As occurred during salmon reintroduction, it may benecessary to utilize a stock from outside the subbasin due to the very low currentpopulation status. Further discussion on specific Umatilla Basin lamprey restoration planswill be forthcoming as this study continues.

Recommendations:


2) Request that ODFW and CTUIR document any adult Pacific lamprey observed during stream surveys.

3) Conduct random spot checks within the subbasin to determine presence/absence of Pacific lamprey.


WALLA WALLA SUBBASIN

Historic Abundance:

The Walla Walla River Valley Indian name is “Wai-i-lat-pu”, the place of ryegrass. The Walla Walla River once supported runs of steelhead, chinook, coho, sockeye,and chum salmon. Historic abundance estimates for Pacific lamprey are not available.Harvest information gathered from tribal informants suggests that Pacific lamprey wereonce abundant in the subbasin. Armand Minthorn (CTUIR, pers. comm.) stated that theNorth and South Forks of the Walla Walla River were utilized for eel harvesting. Eelswere also collected near Skiphorton Creek on the Walla Walla River by CTUIR members(Swindell 1941). These areas where Pacific lamprey were harvested had good riparianhabitat, high water quality, and low gradient for spawning and rearing, similar to spawningand rearing habitat preferred by salmon and steelhead.

Current Abundance:

Currently, no accurate numerical information is available on Pacific lamprey in theWalla Walla Subbasin. Weekly screen trap reports reviewed for the Walla Walla Riverindicate lamprey were enumerated at different times during the last several years. In the1960’s and from 1985 to 1990 lamprey were either not enumerated at different trap boxsites, or counted as rough fish and lumped into a numerical number with other non-salmonid species. Information for 1970 through 1984, and 1991 was not available forreview. From 1992 through 1995, 246 lamprey were enumerated in the Walla Walla

21

Subbasin trap boxes. Seventy-three percent of all lamprey were captured at the LittleWalla Walla River diversion, near RM 47. Lamprey captured were not keyed to specificspecies, nor life history stage. Therefore it is not known whether lamprey captured werePacific lamprey or non-anadromous western brook lamprey.

In May 1997, CTUIR sampled fifty-five lamprey from two dump truck loads ofsand and sediment removed from in front of the rotary screens at the Little Walla WallaRiver diversion. Many more lamprey were present but impossible to access. Of the 55sampled, 51 were western brook lamprey, and four were Pacific lamprey ammocoetes. The sediment and lamprey were returned downstream of the collection site.

In 1996, WDFW electroshocked nine lamprey in the South Fork Touchet River,five lamprey in the North Fork Touchet and three lamprey in Wolf Creek. Althoughlamprey captured were not keyed to species.

CTUIR electroshocked approximately 50 western brook lamprey in Mill Creek inJuly 1996. 15 were collected; releasing 12 upstream and sacrificing 3 for futureidentification purposes. The area surveyed in Walla Walla, WA, near the Wilbur Streetbridge was chosen because of an oral reference stating that lamprey were once numerousat this site.

In the fall of 1993, CTUIR electroshocked 5 ammocoetes, in the South Fork WallaWalla River near RM 6. Lamprey captured were ammocoetes, but were not keyed tospecific species.

James Pearman, a Walla Walla College student, noted collecting western brooklamprey in Yellowhawk and Cottonwood creeks in July, 1977. Yellowhawk Creek is adiversion of Mill Creek.

Presently, there is no harvest of adult Pacific lamprey in this subbasin.


Presence/absence sampling was conducted at eight sites in the Walla Walla RiverBasin. No Pacific lamprey were captured at any sites in the Walla Walla Basin for thissurvey. All fish sampled in the Walla Walla Basin were keyed to the western brookspecies. Time constraints limited the amount of sampling that could be performed. Sampling will continue in 1998.

Sampling was performed at four sites on the mainstem Walla Walla River (TableB-3). Sites were located at RM 12.2, 29.2, 38.2, and 47.0. Temperatures during thesurvey (August 18-20, 1997) ranged from 14oC to 25oC. Of these, lamprey were capturedat only one site (RM 47.0, Little Walla Walla Diversion). 2.3 fish/minute was recorded atthis site. A total of 31 (15 to 155mm) western brook lamprey were captured. This sitehad approximately 4” of silt in the right margin of the site. No abnormalities wereobserved on any lamprey sampled at site. Sampling will continue in 1998 to furtherdocument lamprey presence/absence in this subbasin.

Sampling was performed at three sites on the Touchet River, a major tributary tothe lower mainstem of the Walla Walla River. Sites were located at RM 40.4, 44.3, and51.2. Temperatures during the survey (August 21, 1997) ranged from 18oC to 19oC. Fifity-one total western brook lamprey (2.8 fish/minute) were sampled at RM 51.2. Nolamprey were captured at RM 40.4, and 44.3. Fish sampled size ranged from 32 to169mm in length. One western brook ammocoete (84mm) appeared to have and extra tail

22

that branched off of the upper caudal area. All other lamprey sampled had no visualabnormalities. Sampling is planned for 1998 to further document lamprey populations inthe subbasin.

One site (RM 2.5) was sampled on the South Fork Walla Walla River. Timeconstraints limited the amount of sampling that could be performed. No lamprey werecaptured at this site. Further sampling will need to continue in 1998 to further documentlamprey abundance in this subbasin.


The Walla Walla River originates in the Blue Mountains in northeast Oregon. Theriver flows west and north and meets the Columbia River, near Wallula, Washington atriver mile 315. The river drains 1,785 square miles of northeastern Oregon andsoutheastern Washington. This subbasin lies within Walla Walla and Columbia counties inWashington and Umatilla, Wallowa, and Union counties in Oregon (CTUIR et al. 1990).

The subbasin is comprised of two major physiological regions. The Walla Wallaregion is characterized by rolling, treeless upland formed by deep deposits of loessoverlying multiple lava flows. The Blue Mountain region consists of the long tiltedplateaus formed by uplifting, folding, faulting and erosion of the Columbia River basaltand is characterized by flat-topped ridges, steep-walled canyons, and mountain slopes. Though minimal in percentage of subbasin area, the Blue Mountains are the major sourcefor water in the subbasin (CTUIR et al. 1990).

The high elevation of the Blue Mountains are dominated with interspersed grasses. Forest species include lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, white fir, grand fir,subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce and larch. Mid elevation uplands have little or novegetation cover due to extensive and intensive dry-farming. The river valley is suited toagriculture and extensively irrigated (CTUIR et al. 1990).

Extensive and intensive irrigation in the Walla Walla valley is the primary cause oflow instream flows during critical summer months in the mid subbasin. A network ofirrigation diversions within the subbasin present significant barriers to fish passage. TheLittle Walla Walla Diversion at river mile 47 completely dewaters the river during summermonths and in the spring in years of low streamflow. This diversion impedes and/orblocks upstream migrant fish. The Touchet River had 20 unscreened diversions in 1935,the Walla Walla River diversions below “Tumalum Branch” in 1936 were screened, butnone of those above had protective devices (Neilson 1950). The two major diversion onthe lower mainstem Touchet, the largest tributary to the Walla Walla River, partially blockadult and juvenile fish passage (USFWS 1982). Currently, one irrigation diversion hasnon-functional screens and one is unscreened (Mendel, pers. comm.). In Oregon,unscreened diversions on the mainstem Walla Walla River, and the North and South forkshave posed “serious problems to downstream migrants” (ODFW 1987). At the same time,it is likely that lamprey were impacted as well.

Irrigation-depleted streamflows is the major factor limiting production ofanadromous fish in the Walla Walla Subbasin. By May or June, the mainstem Walla WallaRiver is dry near the state line due to irrigation withdrawals. Irrigation-depletedstreamflows in the lower reaches of the Touchet River impede fish passage at irrigationdiversions and contribute to poor water quality, including elevated water temperatures.

23

Discussion:

Information gathered dealing with Pacific lamprey in the Walla Walla Subbasin isvery limited. As in other basins, population numbers are not available. CTUIR hasdocumented the presence of western brook lamprey and Pacific lamprey in the WallaWalla Subbasin. In February 1996, ODFW observed thousands of lamprey ammocoetes atthe Little Walla Walla Diversion, but did not key them to species.

Extensive irrigation, and farming practices have had substantial impacts on Pacificlamprey populations in this subbasin. Throughout the summer months, the Walla WallaRiver lacks adequate flow for fish survival and migration needs below Milton-Freewater,Oregon.

Diversion of water for irrigation is the primary factor limiting lamprey survival inthe Walla Walla River Subbasin. A network of irrigation diversions braid the Walla WallaRiver into several small, unshaded ditches and during much of the year the river isdewatered. As a result, lamprey rearing and spawning habitat have been diminished.

Prior to 1997, the Walla Walla Subbasin had received little or no mitigation foranadromous fish losses (CRITFC 1995).

A salmon and steelhead restoration program which began in 1997 includes streamhabitat/watershed enhancement, passage improvements at ladders and screens, instreamflow enhancement and hatchery supplementation. It is likely that some salmon andsteelhead projects will also benefit lamprey. In continuing Walla Walla Basin lampreyrestoration efforts, it will be critical to better determine the status (abundance andcomposition) of existing lamprey populations.

Recommendations:

1) Request that WDFW and ODFW enumerate lamprey at all trap boxes, key tospecies (when possible) at all trapping sites, and document capture locations andlife history stage (ammocoetes vs. macrophthalmia / uneyed vs. eyed) of lampreyobserved.

2) Request that WDFW and ODFW document any adult Pacific lamprey observed during stream surveys.



TUCANNON SUBBASIN

Historic Abundance:

This system was historically utilized by the Umatilla, Walla Walla, Nez Perce,Palouse, and Cayuse Tribes. Tribal members historically harvested eels, chinook salmon,

24

steelhead and trout. Armand Minthorn, CTUIR enrollee, stated that his family hadspecific sites on the Tucannon River where his family fished for salmon, trout, and eels.

Pacific lamprey historically were common in the Tucannon Subbasin (Mendel,pers. comm.). Spring and fall chinook and coho salmon were also historically present.Other salmonids present were: mountain whitefish, rainbow and bull trout.

Current Abundance:

No estimate of population size is available for this subbasin. Mendel feels thePacific lamprey population is rapidly declining. WDFW has operated a smolt collectiontrap and conducted electroshocking for many years. Mendel stated that he has capturedsome Pacific lamprey ammocoetes in recent years in various areas of the Tucannon Riverby electroshocking and in downstream migrant traps. In 1995, two Pacific lamprey adultswere captured at the smolt trap at RM 12.5.

In 1997, WDFW sampled 94 Pacific lamprey ammocoetes, and one dead adultPacific lamprey in smolt trap operations. Mean lengths for the ammocoetes were 125mm. The length of the adult was 508mm.

Presently, the Tucannon supports an annual average run of 200 spring chinook,approximately 125 fall chinook, and a minimum estimate of 200 steelhead (Mendel, pers.comm.). Coho salmon are extinct.


Sampling was not performed in 1997 because ESA permits were not obatinedprior to sampling. Sampling is planned for 1998.


The Tucannon River originates in the Umatilla National Forest area of the BlueMountains at an elevation of 6,387 feet above sea level at Oregon Butte in southeastWashington (Fuller 1986). The Tucannon drainage consists of forests, rangelands, andagricultural land (Kelley et al. 1982). The growing season in the area generally runs 110to 140 days per year. Temperatures range from –5oC in the winter to 42oC in the summermonths (USDA 1984 draft).

Hecht et al. (1982) identified and evaluated changes in the riparian, channel andstreambed conditions of the Tucannon River between 1937 and 1978. The changessuggested a regression in the stream’s natural succession process. Thirty-three to 55percent of riparian woodland was lost as results of major floods after 1964. Open zonesreplaced wooded riparian zones, shade was diminished and banks likely became less stable(Hecht et al. 1982).

The principal habitat alteration in the channel from 1937 to 1978 was the wideningand straightening of the stream channel, as a result stream length decreased by seven to 20percent (Hecht et al. 1982). Many of the bends and irregularities in the channel, whichprovided much of the salmonid rearing habitat, were eliminated (WDFW et al. 1990). Atthe same time, Pacific lamprey habitat for rearing juveniles may have been decreased.

25

Pataha Creek, a major tributary of the Tucannon River, has some of the poorestconditions for salmonid production. Some constraints are: 1) elevated summer watertemperatures, 2) heavy sediment deposits that infiltrate gravels, 3) flash flooding events, 4)an irrigation diversion that likely impedes migrating salmonids, 5) little or no riparianvegetation, 6) channelization, 7) unstable streambanks, 8) problems with livestockmanagement. Pataha Creek is utilized by steelhead for spawning and rearing (WDFW etal. 1990), and likely lamprey. These conditions may have effected lamprey populationstoo.

Fish production within the basin has been degraded as a result of human activitiesand catastrophic events. Degradation accelerated over the last two to three decades. Agricultural and livestock management practices have contributed to increasedsedimentation and a general reduced riparian vegetation and stream shade cover. Thelater has likely contributed elevated stream temperatures in the lower basin. Channelingactivities have reduced pool-riffle ratios and riparian vegetation (WDFW et al. 1990).

In the 1960’s flood events straightened the river, eliminating streamside vegetationand instream habitat, and increasing the general gradient of the system (WDFW et al.1990).

In the early 1970’s, a group known as FURPAC (which consisted of various stateand federal agencies, excluding tribes) recommended placing angle-irons in the fishways atIce Harbor Dam (McMichael, pers. comm.). The angle-irons were placed on the sides ofthe fishway, preventing lamprey from passing through Ice Harbor Dam. McMichael statedthat many people thought that Pacific lamprey were impacting Snake River salmonpopulations and further stated that the angle-iron was very effective. The angle-ironswere removed six to eight years ago during dewatering.

According to Mendel, no chemical treatment projects for rough fish control haveoccurred in this subbasin.

Mendel stated that Starbuck Dam (Fletcher’s Diversion) used to be higher than thedam’s current height, and it may have limited Pacific lamprey passage upriver. In recentyears, the dam was modified for salmonid passage.

Discussion:

Pacific lamprey populations in the Tucannon Subbasin are depressed. Mendelstated that lamprey population has declined rapidly since 1981. Besides instream habitatdegradation, one of the major reasons for the decline of the Pacific lamprey populationwas the placement of angle-irons in the fish ladders at Ice Harbor Dam to precludelamprey passage in the Snake River system.

It is hoped that ongoing salmon and steelhead restoration measures(insteam/watershed habitat enhancement and fish passage improvements) beingimplemented in this subbasin will also benefit lamprey. Further understanding is neededregarding current lamprey abundance and species composition before restoration planningcan proceed.

26

Recommendations:

1) Request that WDFW enumerate lamprey at all trap boxes, key to species (whenpossible) at all trapping sites, and document capture locations and life history stage(ammocoetes vs. macrophthalmia / uneyed vs. eyed) of lamprey observed.

2) Request that WDFW to document any adult Pacific lamprey observed during stream surveys.



GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN

Historic Abundance:

Historical estimates of the Pacific lamprey population are not available. Oralinterviews with tribal members indicate that the Grande Ronde River Subbasin oncesupported a fishery for Pacific lamprey. This area was utilized by the Nez Perce, Cayuse,Walla Walla, Palouse, and Sho-Ban Tribes (Lane and Lane 1979; Swindell 1941). Tribalmembers historically harvested eels, bull trout, whitefish, chinook and sockeye salmon,and steelhead. Tribal members spoke of catching and observing lamprey in CatherineCreek, Tony Vey Meadows, Lookingglass Creek, and the upper Grande Ronde River.

Wayne Huff, former ODFW screens operator, stated that Pacific lampreydisappeared in the 1970’s. He stated that the Wallowa and Imnaha rivers had thousandsof Pacific lamprey prior to the 1970’s.

Bob Sayre, former ODFW biologist, stated that he viewed both adults andammocoetes in Catherine Creek in the 1950’s. He stated that Pacific lamprey wereabundant throughout the whole Grande Ronde system during the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Duane West, formerly with ODFW, stated that his crew electroshockedammocoetes near La Grande in the mainstem Grande Ronde River in 1962.

Ken Witty, former ODFW district biologist, stated that there used to be largenumbers of Pacific lamprey in the Imnaha and Wallowa systems. He stated that during hisyears as district biologist (from 1964 to 1990) he noticed lamprey populations wererapidly declining. Witty stated that fish agencies were too worried about declining salmonpopulations to worry about Pacific lamprey. The Grande Ronde Subbasin and tributariesonce supported large runs of summer steelhead, sockeye (O. nerka), coho, and spring andfall chinook salmon (ODFW et al. 1990).

Melvin Farrow, CTUIR enrollee and CTUIR Fisheries technician, stated that heobserved ammocoetes at Tony Vey Meadows in the 1960’s.

27

Armand Minthorn, CTUIR enrollee, spoke of fishing sites on Lookingglass Creek,Catherine Creek, Grande Ronde, Minam, and Wallowa rivers. These are areas that were also likely utilized by Pacific lamprey for spawning and rearing.

Current Abundance:

The Pacific lamprey population in the Grande Ronde Subbasin and tributaries arelikely near extinction. Keefe (ODFW, pers. comm.) stated that they are operating rotarytraps on the Wallowa River and upper Grande Ronde and have captured no lamprey. Lofy(CTUIR, pers. comm.) stated that no lamprey have been captured in Lookingglass Creekduring trapping operations.

Tim Walters, ODFW biologist, stated that no lamprey were sampled or observed inany field activities in the Grande Ronde River subbasin for 1997.

Currently, spring chinook is endangered in the Grande Ronde system. Restorationefforts are being implemented to restore spring chinook salmon and steelhead. Theseefforts will likely benefit lamprey populations as well.


Sampling was not performed in 1997 because ESA permits were not obtainedprior to sampling. Sampling is planned for 1998.


The Grande Ronde River originates in the Blue Mountains of northeast Oregon. Itis bounded by the Blue Mountains to the west and northwest and the Wallowa Mountainsin the southeast. The river enters the Snake River system at RM 168.7 in the HellsCanyon reach. The major tributaries to the system are the Wenaha, Wallowa, and Minamrivers, and Catherine and Lookingglass Creeks. The smaller tributaries are Bear, Joseph,Hurricane, Sheep, and Indian Creeks (CRITFC 1995).

The Grande Ronde River is located above eight dams in the Columbia Riversystem, of which four are located in the Snake River Subbasin. The basin encompasses anarea of about 3,950 square miles in the extreme northeast corner of Oregon. A smallportion of the northern part of the basin is in Washington.

Riparian and instream habitat in parts of the Grande Ronde Subbasin have beenimpacted by a number of land-use activities. Pine beetles have infested some areas of thissubbasin deteriorating riparian along streambanks. However, there are areas such as theMinam and Wenaha drainages that still remain pristine (ODFW et al 1990).

Rearing habitat in some parts of the subbasin is of poor quality due to landmanagement practices and is the major inbasin factor limiting fish production. Spawninghabitat is adequate to support increased escapement levels (ODFW et al 1990).

Riparian habitat degradation is the most serious habitat problem in the basin. Approximately 379 degraded stream miles have been identified (ODFW et al 1990). Several factors have contributed to the problem. Stream channelization for fielddevelopment, livestock grazing, agricultural practices, poorly designed roads, and timber

28

removal have done the most damage. Mining and recreation development have alsocontributed to the loss of riparian habitat.

The combination of wider and shallower stream channels, reduced streamflows,and a decrease in abundance and diversity of riparian vegetation contribute to increasedwater temperatures. Increased water temperature have unfavorable effects on juvenilesalmonids (ODFW et al 1990), and likely impact juvenile Pacific lamprey as well.

Excessive livestock grazing has caused extensive loss of riparian vegetation alongthe upper Grande Ronde, Catherine Creek, Joseph Creek, and Wallowa River drainages(ODFW et al 1990).

As of 1985, unscreened or poorly screened irrigation diversions existed on theupper Grande Ronde and Wallowa Rivers, Catherine Creek, and Joseph Creek. Diversions direct migrating juvenile fish out of streams into irrigated fields (ODFW 1985). In addition, outmigrating juvenile Pacific lamprey may have also been diverted into fieldsbecause of similar outmigration timing as salmonids. An ongoing screening program,funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service and implemented by the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, has corrected and will continue to correct manyscreening problems within the subbasin. Projects on the upper mainstem Grande Rondeand Wallowa Rivers, and Catherine Creek have the highest priority (ODFW 1985). Currently, all streams utilized by chinook salmon have been screened. Streams utilized bysteelhead are now starting to be properly screened. The screening project is a voluntaryprogram with area landowners, and will be an ongoing project until completion. Noprojected completion date is known (Walters, pers. comm.).

Low summer flows occur in the lower reaches of the mainstem and tributaries dueto naturally low flows, extensive irrigation withdrawals, and watershed manipulationthrough timber harvest and agricultural practices. Extreme low flows occur generallybetween La Grande and Wallowa on the mainstem, Catherine Creek below Union, JosephCreek, and the lower reaches of all Wallowa tributaries that flow through areas utilized byagricultural operations (ODFW et al 1990). These low flows and resulting high watertemperatures may impede how Pacific lamprey migrate to suitable spawning areas in theupper reaches of these systems.

Water quality in the headwaters is generally good. In the lower mainstem andlower reaches of tributaries, non-point sources significantly reduce water quality byincreasing turbidity, excessive water temperatures, and having low dissolved oxygenlevels. Runoff from urban, agricultural, and forest areas all contribute to the non-pointpollution problems (ODFW et al 1990).

Several potential point sources of pollution have been identified. Bulk gasoline,waste treatment, and chemical plants all have potential impacts on ground and surfacewaters within the subbasin (ODFW et al 1990).

Joe McMichael and Leonard Mayfield, US Army Corps of Engineers employees,stated that angle-iron was placed in the fishway at Ice Harbor Dam under the direction ofa group known as FURPAC (which consisted of state and federal agencies, excludingtribes). The angle-iron was very effective at eliminating upstream lamprey passage. McMichael stated that Pacific lamprey were thought to be impacting Snake River salmonpopulations.

At the same time as Pacific lamprey populations were declining, LowerMonumental (1968), Little Goose (1970), and Lower Granite (1975) dams were all

29

completed and operating. This may have also impacted adult Pacific lamprey and theirability to migrate upstream into suitable spawning habitat, and may have also impactedjuvenile Pacific lamprey and their survivability through these dams during outmigrationperiods. In addition, the completion of Dworshak Dam (1972) eliminated over 600 milesof spawning and rearing habitat for lamprey. No mitigation was ever received for thisloss.

Discussion:

Limited information on Pacific lamprey for the Grande Ronde Subbasin isavailable. It is known that Pacific lamprey were once abundant in the Grande Ronde Riverand tributaries, but are now likely near extinction. A combination of inbasin habitatproblems and mainstem passage problems likely lead to the demise of lamprey in theGrande Ronde River and other Snake River tributaries.

Witty (ODFW, pers. comm.) stated that Pacific lamprey may have been eliminatedby design. Witty stated that angle-irons were placed in the fishways at Ice Harbor Dam inthe early 1970’s to eliminate upstream lamprey passage.

Recommendations:


2) Request ODFW to document any adult Pacific lamprey observed during stream surveys.



30

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This program was funded by Bonneville Power Administration. The ConfederatedTribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation thank the efforts of Deborah Docherty and otherBonneville Power Administration personnel for their assistance.

We acknowledge the efforts of tribal employees: Gary James for report review,editing and contract oversight; Paul Kissner for providing report information; ThomasBailor for providing cultural resource information and assistance; Julie Burke and CelesteReves for office assistance; Troy Rodriguez for tape review and numerous hours of fieldsampling; Eric Hoverson, Craig Contor, David Close, Jed Volkman, and BrianZimmerman for providing field data and report review.

Thanks is extended to Roy Beaty of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal FishCommission for field sampling, planning and report review.

We greatly appreciate the efforts of tribal members of the Confederated Tribes ofthe Umatilla Indian Reservation: Cecelia Bearchum, Percy Brigham, Virgil Bronson,Jimmy Clark, Melvin Farrow, Mike Farrow, Alphonse Halfmoon, Ken Hall, DonaldJackson, Armand Minthorn, Jay Minthorn, Tina Jackson-Norvell, Elias Quaempts, andLillian Spino for providing valuable historical information.

We would also like to thank members of the Nez Perce Tribe: Loretta Halfmoon,Loretta Scott, Silas Whitman, Rudy Miles, Orrin Allen, Horace Axtell, Jesse Green,Richard Powaukee, Sr. for providing valuable historical information.

CTUIR would also like to thank numerous former and current employees fromvarious federal and state fish agencies for providing valuable information: Norman Been,Homer Campbell, Errol Claire, Mike Gray, Dave Heckeroth, Wayne Huff, Chris Kern,Brian Kilgore, Robert Sayre, Tim Unterwegner, Tim Walters, Duane West, and Ken Wittyfrom the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Glen Mendel, Mark Shuck, and RobertBugert with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Joe McMichael andLeonard Mayfield with the US Army Corps of Engineers.

31

LITERATURE CITED

Bailor, T. and J. Van Pelt. 1997. An Analysis of the Middle Fork John Day River as atraditional use area, Malheur National Forest, Long Creek Range District, GrantCounty, Oregon. On File at CTUIR.

Beamish, R.J. 1980. Adult biology of the river lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) and the Pacificlamprey (Lampetra tridentata) from the Pacific coast of Canada. CanadaianJournal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 37:1906-1923.

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 1995. “Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit”Spirit of the Salmon, Columbia River anadromous fish restoration plan of the NezPerce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakama Tribes, Volume II-subbasin plans.

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and Oregon Department of Fishand Wildlife. 1990. Umatilla River subbasin salmon and steelhead productionplan.

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife, Washington Department of Fisheries, and the Washington Department ofWildlife. 1990. Walla Walla River subbasin salmon and steelhead production plan.

Clemens, W.A. and G.V. Wilby. 1967. Fishes of the Pacific coast of Canada. 2d ed.reprint. Fisheries Research Board of Canada., Bull. 68. 443 pp.

Fuller, R.K. 1986. Instream habitat improvement in southeastern Washington. Final Rep. Washington Dept. of Game. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WallaWalla, Washington. Contract No. DACW 68-81-C-0128. 59pp.+ append.

Galbreath, J. 1979. Columbia river colossus, the white sturgeon. Oregon Wildlife,March:3-8.

Hecht, B., R. Enkeboll, C.F. Ivor, and P. Baldwin. 1982. Sediment transport, waterquality, and changing bed conditions, Tucannon River, Washington. Submitted tothe U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Spokane, Washington. 185pp.+ append.

Jackson, Aaron D., P.D. Kissner, D.R. Hatch, B.L. Parker, D.A. Close, M.S. Fitzpatrick,and H. Li. 1996. Pacific Lamprey Research and Restoration annual report. Bonneville Power Administration Report, Project Number 94-026, Portland, OR.

Kan, T.T. 1975. Systematics, variation, distribution, and biology of lampreys of the genusLampreta in Oregon. Doctoral Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis,Oregon. 194p.

32

Kelley, D.W. and Associates. 1982. Ecological investigations in the Tucannon RiverWashington. Prepared for H. Esmaili and Associates, Inc. Submitted to the U.S.Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Spokane, Washington. 112pp.

Lane, R.B. and B. Lane. 1979. Traditional fisheries sites of the Walla Walla, Cayuse, andUmatilla Indians. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation,Pendleton, Oregon.

Mallatt, J. 1983. Laboratory growth of larval lampreys (Lampetra (entosphenus)tridentata) at different concentrations and animal densities. J. Exp. Bio. 22:293-301.

Merrell, T.R. 1959. Gull food habits on the Columbia River. Research Briefs, FishCommission of Oregon 7(1):82.

Minthorn, A. 1994. “Mits Qooi Nux Sa Kin Na Noon In Walus Pa”, A partial traditionaluse inventory of the Umatilla National Forest and Walla Walla National Forest. onfile at CTUIR.

Neilson, Reed. 1950. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Survey of the Columbia River and its Tributaries-Part V, Special Scientific Report:Fisheries No. 38.

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1986. Application for amendment, Columbia Riverbasin fish and wildlife program; Walla Walla River basin flow augmentation. Submitted by Washington Department of Game and Oregon Department of Fishand Wildlife.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1990. Confederated Tribes of the UmatillaIndian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservationof Oregon, John Day River Subbasin Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1986. Study of wild spring chinook salmon inthe John Day River System, Final Report 1985.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1985. A proposed long range plan for fishscreening in Northeast Oregon. Portland, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1987. United States vs. Oregon subbasinproduction reports. Portland, Oregon.

33

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1990. Confederated Tribes of the UmatillaIndian Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho, Washington Department ofFisheries, and the Washington Department of Wildlife, Grande Ronde Riversubbasin salmon and steelhead production plan.

Oregon Water Resource Department. 1986. John Day River basin report. State ofOregon, Salem, Oregon.

Pearman, James R.E., 1977. Ecology and distribution of fishes in Yellowhawk andCottonwood Creeks and the Lower Walla Walla River, Unpubl. Thesis, WallaWalla College. 28p.

Pike, Gordon C. 1951. Lamprey Marks on Whales. Pacific Biological Station. J. Fish.Res. Bd. Canada. pp. 275-280.

Roffe, T.J. and B.R. Mate. 1984. Abundances and feeding habits of pinnipeds in theRogue River, Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48(4):1262:1274.

Semekula, S.N., and P.A. Larkin. 1968. Age, Growth, Food, and Yield of the whitesturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) of the Fraser River, British Columbia. J. Fish.Res. Bd. Canada., Vol. 25 (12): 2589-2602.

Swindell, Edgar, Swindell Report. 1941. Historic fishing sites of the Columbia River BasinTribes.

Stuart, Amy, and Stephen H. Williams, 1988. John Day River Basin Fish HabitatImprovement Implementation Plan. Bonneville Power Administration Report,Project Number 84-21, Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1984. Tucannon-Pataha Watershed, SoutheastWashington cooperative river basin study (draft).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Lower Snake River enhancement study. unpublished report. Ecological Services Office, Boise, Idaho.

Wolf, B.O., and S.L. Jones. 1989. Great Blue Heron Deaths Caused by Predation onPacific Lamprey. The Condor 91:482-484.

Wydoski, Richard S., and Richard R. Whitney. Inland Fishes of Washington, Universityof Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1979.

34

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Been, Norman, Former Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Screens Operator, OralInterview Regarding Historic Lamprey Populations in the Umatilla Subbasin, 1997.

Brigham, Percy, CTUIR enrollee and fisherman, Oral History Interview Regarding PacificLamprey Losses in the Columbia River Basin, 1996.

Bronson, Virgil, CTUIR enrollee, Oral Interview Regarding Chemical Treatment in theUmatilla River Subbasin, 1997.

Bugert, Robert, Chelan County Public Utilities Division, Oral Interview Regarding PacificLamprey Populations in the Tucannon River, 1997.

Campbell, Homer, Former Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Biologist, OralInterview Regarding Historic Lamprey Populations in the Umatilla Subbasin, 1996.

Claire, Errol, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oral Interview on the History ofthe John Day Subbasin, 1996.

Clark, Jimmy, CTUIR enrollee, Oral Interview Regarding Chemical Treatment in theUmatilla River Subbbasin, 1997.

Farrow, Melvin, CTUIR enrollee and CTUIR Fisheries Technician, Oral InterviewRegarding Pacific Lamprey in the Grande Ronde Subbasin, 1996.

Gray, Mike, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oral Interview Regarding CurrentLamprey Populations in the John Day Subbasin, 1996.

Halfmoon, Alphonse, CTUIR enrollee, CTUIR Fish and Wildlife Committee-Chairmanand CTUIR Board of Trustees-Vice Chairman, Oral History Interview RegardingPacific Lamprey Losses in the Columbia River Basin, 1996.

Heckeroth, David, Former Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Biologist, OralInterview Regarding Historic Lamprey Populations in the Umatilla Subbasin.

Huff, Wayne, Former Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Technician, Oral InterviewRegarding Historic Lamprey Populations in the Snake River Subbasins, 1996.

Jackson, Donald A., CTUIR enrollee, Oral Interview Regarding Chemical Treatment inthe Umatilla River Subbasin, 1997.

Lofy, Peter, CTUIR Fisheries Biologist, Oral Interview Regarding Pacific LampreyPopulations in the Grande Ronde Subbasin, 1997.

35

Mayfield, Leonard, Corps of Engineers, Oral Interview Regarding Pacific LampreyPopulations in the Snake River Subbasins, 1996.

McMichael, Joe, Corps of Engineers-Walla Walla District, Oral Interview RegardingPacific Lamprey Populations in the Snake River Subbasins, 1996.

Mendel, Glen, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oral Interview RegardingDeclining Pacific Lamprey Populations in NE Oregon and SE Washington, 1997.

Minthorn, Armand, CTUIR enrollee and CTUIR Board of Trustees Member, Oral HistoryInterview Regarding Pacific Lamprey Losses in the Columbia River Basin, 1996.

Moulton, Coby, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oral Interview RegardingLampey Abundance in the John Day River Subbasin, 1998.

Norvell-Jackson, Tina, CTUIR enrollee, Oral Interview Regarding Chemical Treatment inthe Umatilla River Subbasin, 1997.

Quaempts, Elias, CTUIR enrollee, Oral History Interview Regarding Pacific LampreyLosses in the Columbia River Basin, 1996.

Sayre, Robert, Former Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Oral InterviewRegarding Historic Lamprey Populations in the Columbia River Basin, 1996.

van de Wetering, Stan, Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Fisheries Biologist, PersonalCommunication Regarding Lamprey Electroshocking Methods, 1998.

Unterwegner, Tim, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oral Interview RegardingCurrent Lamprey Populations in the John Day Subbasin, 1996-1997.

Walters, Tim, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oral Interview Regarding PassageBarriers in the Grande Ronde River Subbasin, 1997.

West, Duane, Former Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Oral InterviewRegarding Historic Lamprey Populations in the Columbia River Basin, 1996.

Witty, Ken, Former Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife District Biologist, OralInterview Regarding Historic Lamprey Populations in the Snake River Subbasins,1996.

Zimmerman, Brian, CTUIR Artificial Production and Passage Biologist, Oral InterviewRegarding Pacific Lamprey Sightings at Three Mile Falls Dam, 1996.

36

ACRONYMS

CRITFC Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish CommissionCTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian ReservationNPPC Northwest Power Planning CouncilODFW Oregon Department of Fish and WildlifeOWRD Oregon Water Resource DepartmentOSU Oregon State UniversityTMD Three Mile Falls DamUSFWS United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceUSDA United States Department of AgricultureWDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

37

APPENDIX A

Figure A-1. Joint Use Map of the CTUIR

38

APPENDIX B

Table B-1. Subbasin contacts and sampling devices used in NE Oregon and SEWashington, 1997.

SUBBASIN CONTACT PHONE NO. SAMPLING DEVICEJohn Day Tim Unterwegner/Mike Gray (541) 575-1167 Field SurveysJohn DayUmatillaUmatilla

Coby MoultonSue KnappCraig Contor

(541) 575-0561(541) 567-5318(541) 276-4109

Screen TrapsRotary Traps and WEIDRotary Traps/Field Surveys

Walla WallaWalla Walla

Brian KilgoreGlen Mendel

(541) 276-2344(509) 382-1005

Screen TrapsField Surveys

Tucannon Glen Mendel (509) 382-1005 Rotary Traps/Field SurveysGrande RondeGrande Ronde

Peter LofyMary Lou Keefe

(541) 962-3777(541) 962-3777

Rotary TrapsRotary Traps

Imnaha Don Bryson (541) 426-0119 Rotary TrapsYakima Ken McDonald (509) 662-4361 ?Bonneville Dam Jim Kuskie (503) 374-8375 N/AMcNary Dam Brad Ebbie/Paul Wagner (541) 922-3211 Smolt Collection FacilityLower Granite Dam Marc Peterson (509) 332-1625 Smolt Collection FacilityIce Harbor Dam Steve Richards (509) 382-1187 Count Station ManagerLittle Goose Dam Rex Baxter (509) 399-2009 Smolt Collection Facility

39

40

41

APPENDIX CFigure C-1. Length Frequency Histogram of Natural Juvenile Pacific Lamprey captured

during electrofishing in the Umatilla River, 1997.Figure C-2. Length Frequency Histogram of Natural Juvenile Pacific Lamprey captured

during electrofishing in the upper mainstem John Day River, 1997.Figure C-3. Length Frequency Histogram of Natural Juvenile Pacific Lamprey captured

during electrofishing in Camas Creek, 1997.Figure C-4. Length Frequency Histogram of Natural Juvenile Pacific Lamprey captured

during electrofishing in the North Fork John Day River, 1997.Figure C-5. Length Frequency Histogram of Natural Juvenile Pacific Lamprey captured

during electrofishing in the Middle Fork John Day River, 1997.

Figure C-6. Length Frequency Histogram of Natural Juvenile Pacific Lamprey capturedduring electrofishing in the South Fork John Day River, 1997.

42

Clear (transparent-like)

Lacks dark line

Figure C-7. Characteristics of Juvenile Western Brook lamprey.

Blue-gray Color

Dark Pigment

Dark Line

Figure C-8. Characteristics of Juvenile Pacific lamprey.

46

Lamprey Research and Restoration Project

1997 Annual Report

Part (B) Abundance Monitoring for Columbia and Snake Rivers

Prepared by:

Douglas R. Hatch

and

Blaine L. Parker

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission729 NE Oregon Street, Suite 200

Portland, OR 97232

August 5, 1998

47

Table of Contents

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................48

List of Figures ...........................................................................................................................50

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................51

Acknowledgments .....................................................................................................................53

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................54

Methods ....................................................................................................................................55Juvenile Lamprey Investigations.....................................................................................55

Passage Trends...................................................................................................55Biological sampling of Juvenile Lamprey ............................................................55

Adult Lamprey Investigations.........................................................................................56Study Area .........................................................................................................56Abundance Estimates .........................................................................................56Length Frequency Estimates...............................................................................57Petersen Disc Tag Study.....................................................................................57

Lamprey collection .................................................................................57Holding and Biological Data Collection...................................................58Tagging and release ................................................................................58Travel time .............................................................................................59

Results and Interpretation..........................................................................................................60Juvenile Lamprey Investigations.....................................................................................60

McNary Dam..........................................................................................60Lower Monumental Dam........................................................................60Little Goose Dam ...................................................................................61Lower Granite Dam................................................................................61

Adult Lamprey Investigation..........................................................................................62Abundance Estimates .........................................................................................62Difficulties with Counting...................................................................................63Length Frequency Estimates...............................................................................65Petersen Disc Tag Study.....................................................................................66

Recommendations .....................................................................................................................68Juvenile Lamprey Investigations.....................................................................................68Adult Lamprey Investigations.........................................................................................68

References ................................................................................................................................69

Appendix A...............................................................................................................................89

48

List of Tables

Table 1. Life history and passage data for juvenile Pacific lamprey sampledat McNary Dam juvenile salmonid collection facility from Aprilthrough December 1997. The 24-hour sampling rate of the juvenilesalmonid bypass flow varied often within a month. Monthly passageestimates are sums of the daily estimates. Juvenile lamprey wererecorded as “browns” or “silvers”, referring to ammocoetes ormacrophathalmia , respectively...........................................................................70

Table 2. Life history and passage data for juvenile Pacific lamprey sampledat Lower Monumental Dam juvenile salmonid collection facilityfrom April through November 1, 1997. The 24-hour sampling rateof the juvenile salmonid bypass flow varied often within a month.Monthly passage estimates are sums of the daily estimates. Juvenilelamprey were recorded as “browns” or “silvers”, referring toammocoetes or macrophathalmia , respectively...................................................71

Table 3. Life history and passage data for juvenile Pacific lamprey sampledat Little Goose Dam juvenile salmonid collection facility from Aprilthrough November 1, 1997. The 24-hour sampling rate of thejuvenile salmonid bypass flow varied often within a month. Monthlypassage estimates are sums of the daily estimates. Juvenile lampreywere recorded as “browns” or “silvers”, referring to ammocoetes ormacrophathalmia , respectively...........................................................................72

Table 4. Life history and passage data for juvenile Pacific lamprey sampledat Little Goose Dam juvenile salmonid collection facility from Aprilthrough November 1, 1997. The 24-hour sampling rate of thejuvenile salmonid bypass flow varied often within a month. Monthlypassage estimates are sums of the daily estimates. Juvenile lampreywere recorded as “browns” or “silvers”, referring to ammocoetes ormacrophathalmia , respectively...........................................................................73

Table 5. Pacific lamprey passage estimates (95% bound) derived fromCTUIR on-site observations at Bonneville Dam in 1997 .....................................74

49

Table 6. Estimated total adult Pacific lamprey passage by month atBonneville, The Dalles, John Day, McNary, Ice Harbor, LowerMonumental, Little Goose, Rock Island, Rocky Reach, and Wellsdams in 1997. .....................................................................................................75

Table 7. Pacific lamprey ladder ascending efficiency and (SE) at BonnevilleDam in 1997. All comparisons (daytime, nighttime, and total)between Bradford Island and Washington Shore were significantlydifferent (P=0.028) using a two-sample Wilcoxon Test. ......................................76

Table 8. Summary of lamprey passage counts made at the Bradford Islandand Washington Shore count stations at Bonneville Dam in 1997. On-site counts were observations recorded over 12 minute intervalsand video-based counts were made from recordings made duringthe same 12 minute intervals. A total of 50 intervals (34 atBradford Island and 16 at Washington Shore) were included in theanalysis. Significant differences (in italics) were based on pairedWilcoxon Tests with α = 0.05.. ..........................................................................77

Table 9. Length, weight, and migration data on recaptured Pacific lampreydisk tagged at Bonneville Dam, and released at Stevenson,Washington in 1997. Pacific lamprey were released at riverkilometers, 243.3 and 243.4................................................................................78

50

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of the Columbia River Basin. The dams that are labeled arelocations of adult lamprey count data..................................................................79

Figure 2. FERL trap fished at Bonneville Dam in 1997 (from Vella andStuehrenberg).....................................................................................................80

Figure 3. Lamprey reward poster displaying the size and placement of thePetersen disc tag and the reward for its recovery ................................................81

Figure 4. Adult Pacific lamprey passage estimates from Bonneville Dam in1997 as a function of hour of the day..................................................................82

Figure 5. Length frequency of Pacific lamprey estimated from measuringimages recorded on videotape at Wells Dam (n =124), Ice HarborDam (n = 253), and Bonneville Dam (n = 614) in 1997.......................................83

Figure 6. Length frequency plot of Pacific lamprey salvaged from the JohnDay Dam fish ladder on 1/8/98. ..........................................................................84

Figure 7. Length and weight relationship of 120 Pacific lamprey sampled atJohn Day Dam on 1/8/98 (R2 = 0.846)................................................................85

Figure 8. Length frequency distribution for Pacific lamprey sampled atBonneville in 1997..............................................................................................86

Figure 9. Release and recapture locations of Pacific lamprey marked withPetersen discs, in the Columbia River, during 1997.............................................87

51

Abstract

In 1996, a field study was begun to investigate the declining population of Pacific lampreyLampetra tridentata and develop appropriate restoration programs for stocks in the ColumbiaRiver. The study was headed by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation(CTUIR) in cooperation with the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) andOregon State University (OSU). The CRITFC primarily concentrated on two objectives in 1997. The first objective was to determine abundance, passage trends, length frequencies and lifephases of juvenile Pacific lamprey migrating past mainstem Columbia and Snake river dams andproject tributaries. The second objective was to determine the current abundance, passage trends,and length frequency of adult Pacific lamprey crossing mainstem Columbia and Snake river dams.

Life history characteristics of transformed and untransformed juvenile Pacific lampreywere collected at Lower Granite, Little Goose, and Lower Monumental dams on the Snake Riverand at McNary Dam on the Columbia River during the 1997 migration season. Most outmigrantPacific lamprey sampled were of the transformed silvery form known as macrophathalmia,although a substantial number of untransformed brown ammocoetes were also sampled. Juvenilelamprey were documented at all four dams throughout the sampling season (late March throughOctober), although the preponderance of outmigrants passed during April through June. Similarly, lamprey passage at all projects declined sharply from July through the remainder of thepassage season (November-December). This decline was most noticeable at the Snake Riverdams where passage from July through the end of the monitoring season was generally less than100 outmigrants per month.

Three hundred and twenty-three adult Pacific lamprey were collected and tagged with 13mm Petersen discs at the Bonneville Dam Fish Engineering Research Laboratory (FERL) fromJuly through early October 1997. Forty tags were returned, all from Bonneville Reservoir or it’stributary streams. Thirteen (33%) of the returned tags contained sufficient capture information toestimate travel time at large; stock identification was not possible since all recaptures occurredrelatively soon after release and not in spawning locations. Time at large ranged from 1 to 13 d,with a mean of 3 d. Daily movements ranged from 0.2 to 65.4 Rkm/24 h period, with a mean of15.6 Rkm/24 h. None of the tagged lamprey were captured or observed upstream of The DallesDam, although 69% of the 13 complete recaptures occurred within 0.5 km of The Dalles Dam.

Adult Pacific lamprey fish ladder passage estimates are presented from Bonneville, TheDalles, John Day, McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, Lower Granite, RockIsland, Rocky Reach, and Wells dams for 1997. Major decreases in dam counts of Pacificlamprey were identified as the run progressed upstream. These decreases could identifytributaries where populations are returning or could be associated with difficulties in countingPacific lamprey. Enumerating Pacific lamprey at fish count stations is very difficult as a result oflamprey behavior in ladders designed for salmonid passage. The overall success of Pacificlamprey ascending the two fish ladders at Bonneville Dam was compared using calculations of

52

local efficiency. Local efficiencies differed significantly (P = 0.028) between Washington Shore(12.5%) and Bradford Island (32.8%) ladders. The Bradford Island estimate was similar toestimates reported in the literature for sea lamprey (35.4%). Length frequency data is presentedfrom data gathered from video recordings and from hands-on sampling at Bonneville, Ice Harbor,Wells, and John Day Dams. A length-weight relationship was developed for Pacific lampreysampled at Bonneville Dam over a 12 week period.

53

Acknowledgments

We thank the following individuals for their assistance with juvenile lamprey objectives ofthis project: Julie Firman, Sam Moyers, Shawn Rapp, ODFW; Todd Hilson, Paul Hoffarth,Sharon Lind, Monty Price, Doug Ross, Rosanna Tudor, Pete Verhey, and Shirley Witalis,WDFW. The following individuals assisted with the adult lamprey aspects of this report: JohnLoch and Steve Richards, WDFW; Chuck Pevan of Chelan County PUD; Rick Klinge of DouglasCounty PUD; and Mike Wakeland of the CRITFC.

54

Introduction

Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata is an anadromous fish endemic to the Columbia RiverBasin. This fish is highly prized by native Americans as a ceremonial and subsistence food item. Often found in sympatry with native anadromous salmonids Oncorhyncus sps., the Pacificlamprey shares similar life history needs that include pristine freshwater spawning and rearinghabitat, mainstem passage corridors to the ocean and back, and productive ocean rearing habitat. Unlike anadromous salmonids, the Pacific lamprey is not highly prized or utilized by non-Indians,consequently, recent declines in Pacific lamprey abundance and distribution had gone largelyunnoticed by regional fishery managers. Diligent efforts by tribal and Columbia River Inter-TribalFish Commission (CRITFC) staff secured funding and support to investigate the declines indistribution and abundance of Pacific lamprey. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla IndianReservation (CTUIR) in cooperation with the CRITFC and Oregon State University (OSU) haveinitiated a multi-faceted, multi-year approach to investigate and determine the mechanisms behindthe declines and subsequent strategies for recovery. This report covers the second year of theCRITFC portion of this study. The main emphasis will be data summary and reporting for thissecond year. Detailed analysis will be completed in years when sufficient data exist for analysis. Two primary objectives in this project include:

1) Determine abundance, passage trends, length frequencies and life phases of juvenile Pacificlamprey migrating past mainstem Columbia and Snake river dams and project tributaries; and,

2) Determine the current abundance, passage trends, and length frequency of adult Pacificlamprey crossing mainstem Columbia and Snake river dams.

55

Methods

Juvenile Lamprey Investigations

Study Area

During April through December 1997, data were collected on juvenile lamprey fromLower Granite, Little Goose, and Lower Monumental dams on the Snake River, and fromMcNary Dam on the Columbia River. These locations were selected because the existing juvenilesalmonid collection operations also incidentally collected an unknown segment of the juvenilePacific lamprey outmigration.

Passage trends

Pacific lamprey juvenile passage trend information is imprecise at best. Collection ofjuvenile lamprey at mainstem dams is incidental to sampling juvenile salmonids. Unknownguidance efficiencies of juvenile lamprey combined with unknown spill passage to turbine passageratios reduce our ability to precisely estimate abundance. Long (1968) showed that juvenilelamprey migrate deeper in the water column than do juvenile salmonids. In addition, juvenilelamprey often hide in various locations throughout the bypass systems. Large numbers are oftenfound during the final cleanup and shutdown operations at the end of the migration season in thefall. These issues combined with highly variable sampling rates during periods of peak-juvenilesalmonid passage confound efforts to quantitatively estimate juvenile lamprey outmigration.

Biological sampling of Juvenile Lamprey

Total lengths (mm), weight (g), and developmental stage were recorded from juvenilelamprey collected at the by-pass facilities by CRITFC and Collection Facility Staff. Developmental stages were assigned to according the physiological stage of development, eitherthe larvae form (i.e. ammocoete) or the transformed juvenile (i.e. macrophathalmia). These formswere characterized by their coloration and physical features. The eyeless, brown-coloredammocoetes were referred to as “brown” lamprey, while the eyed, silvery macrophathalmia werereferred to as “silver” lamprey. Only the silvery colored macrophthalmia were considered to beoutmigrants, although high flow conditions often dislodged and transported the ammocoetes tojuvenile collection sites at mainstem dams. After the collection of lengths, weights, and colorationphase, the juvenile lamprey were revived in holding troughs supplied with flow through riverwater. The juvenile lampreys were later released through the exit chute back into the river.

Adult Lamprey Investigations

56

Study Area

Data on adult lamprey fish ladder passage were obtained from all mainstem Columbia andSnake river hydroprojects that are equipped with fish counting stations. These includeBonneville, The Dalles, John Day, McNary, Rock Island, Rocky Reach, Wells, Ice Harbor, LowerMonumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite dams (Figure 1). These hydroelectric projectswere chosen because fish passage is recorded on videotape at these sites and/or on-site lampreycounts are made there.

Abundance Estimates

Fish ladder counts of adult lamprey were used as an index of abundance. Fish laddercounts were obtained by reviewing time-lapse recorded videotape, or from on-site counts. On-site lamprey counts were available for the four lower Snake River dams as well as McNary, JohnDay, and The Dalles dams. Lamprey counts from video records were available from Wells,Rocky Reach, and Rock Island dams. At Bonneville Dam, on-site counts were available from theCorps of Engineers (COE) during times when shad passage was considered low. During periodswhen shad passage was considered too high for lamprey counting, video records were made. These records were reviewed by CTUIR to enumerate lamprey passage. Additionally, CTUIRperformed some on-site lamprey counting during July, August, and September.

The on-site lamprey counting at Bonneville Dam conducted by the COE was based on“daytime” (between 0400 and 2000 hrs) counts. The on-site lamprey counting conducted by theCTUIR was based on a sampling scheme where lamprey passage was enumerated during many(range 5 to 45) 12 minute periods selected within each stratum (1/2 month units). This countingwas performed during both daytime and nighttime periods. Passage estimates and 95% boundswere made using stratified random sampling (Scheaffer et al. 1990).

Comparisons were made between Pacific lamprey counts made by the CTUIR on-siteobservers and from reviewing videotape. Lamprey counts from 50 12-minute time intervals werecompared using paired t-tests and paired Wilcoxon tests (Mendenhall 1983). Alpha (α) was set at0.05. Similar to conditions in 1995 and 1996 (Jackson et al. 1997), a tremendous amount oflamprey movement (upstream and downstream) at the count station windows was observed in1997. Therefore for statistical comparisons, we treated upstream and downstream estimatesindependently.

To compare overall success of Pacific lamprey ascending the two fish ladders atBonneville Dam in 1997 we calculated local efficiency (E) values for each count station using(Haro and Kynard 1997):

where: Nu = number of fish passed upstream; and,Nd = number of fish passed downstream.

57

Local efficiency values were calculated using data from the CTUIR on-site observations fordaytime and nighttime periods within two-week periods (equal to the strata used for estimatingabundance above). These values were compared between fish ladders using a two sampleWilcoxon test.

Length Frequency Estimates

We estimated lengths of lamprey from videotape recorded at Ice Harbor, Lower Granite,and Wells dams. First, we determined what the magnification factor was at each count stationwindow (this was also repeated if changes were made to the camera). The magnification factorwas calculated by measuring the known distance between the “jack” lines as they appeared on thevideo monitor. The images of individual lamprey were measured to the nearest mm with a ruleron a video monitor. These image lengths were then converted to fish lengths (in inches) by:

Fish length = FI / MF

where: FI = fish image length measured in mm; and,MF =distance between “jack” lines (mm) on the monitor / 22.

Petersen Disc Tag Study

Lamprey collection

Adult Pacific lamprey were collected at the Fisheries Engineering and ResearchLaboratory (FERL) at Bonneville Dam from early July through the first week of October. Lamprey were captured a trap mounted on the side of the fishway just beneath the waters surface(Figure 2). University of Idaho (UofI) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) staffoperated the trap to collect Pacific lamprey for a radio telemetry project. Excess lampreys weregiven to CRITFC staff for tagging. Upon completion of the radio telemetry project, CRITFCstaff assumed trap operations to provide additional lamprey for tagging. The trap was generallylowered into the fishway at dusk and pulled the following morning. The trap was generally fishedinversely proportional to the catch rate to optimize our weekly catch total. Tagging goals wereapproximately 100 lamprey weekly, although this goal was only achieved in one of the twelveweeks of tagging.

Holding and Biological Data Collection

Once captured, lamprey were transferred from the trap to a 85 l plastic container toholding tank (aluminum 4’x 3’ x 3’) supplied with flow through river water. Lampreys were heldfrom several hours to several days before tagging. Holding time was determined by the number of

58

lamprey trapped at one time. For example, if 20 or more fish were trapped at once, they wereusually tagged and released the same day. Later in the season, fish were often held several days toaccumulate sufficient number for tagging and release.

Lamprey were anesthetized using MS-222 at the rate of 150 mg /l. The dosage variedsomewhat depending water temperatures and number of animals. Once anesthetized, the animalwas measured (nearest cm), weighed (nearest gm), and examined for marks, color shades and anyother distinctive features. The tags were Petersen disc tags, 13 mm in diameter, numbered on onetag side, with the other side blank (Figure 3). A unique color combination was used for eachweek of the 12-week study. The tag halves were connected to each other and attached to thelamprey by a 76-mm nickel metal pin. We modified the pin slightly by bending it to a 30° angle tofacilitate a parallel relationship between the tag and the tissue of the lamprey to prevent the edgeof the tag wearing into the flesh of the animal. We disinfected the tags, pins, tags site on thelamprey and the technicians fingers in an iodine-based antiseptic solution prior to tag application. The number half of the tag was slide onto the pin, flush against the head of the pin, ready forapplication. The number of the tag was now read to the recording technician, who would thenrepeat it back for verification.

Tagging and Release

The point of application was on the left side of the lamprey near the dorsal surfaceapproximately 2-4 cm anterior to the insertion of the first dorsal fin. The tag was partiallyassembled with the data portion of the tag placed on the tagging pin next to the pinhead. The pinwas inserted into the flesh and realigned to exit at approximately the same place on the oppositeside of the animal. It was necessary to do this procedure quickly as the presence of the tagging pinin the animals muscle tissue often caused the muscle fibers to contract around the pin, making itdifficult to push the pin through the remaining tissue. This situation occurred several times duringthe initial weeks of the study, but was less of an problem as technicians became more experiencedin applying the tags. Once the pin had passed through the opposite side of the lamprey, the blankhalf of the tag was inserted on to the pin. To complete the tag, all but 1.5-2 cm of pin next to theblank half of the tag was cut away. The remaining material was bent into a closed loop with aslight space of approximately 2mm to allow for expansion of the tag away from the side of thelamprey (Figure 3). The tag number was again confirmed and the animal was then moved to arecovery tank containing flow-through river water.

Tagged lampreys were released back into the Columbia River within 1.5 hours after thelast animal was tagged. This allowed for sufficient recovery from the MS-222. All lampreys werereleased during the afternoon on the Washington side of the river upstream of Bonneville Dam. Except for a single release 4/10’s of a kilometer upstream of the Bridge of the Gods, all taggedlampreys were released at or near the public boat launch at Stevenson, Washington. Release areascontained large rocks, moderate currents, and adjacent deeper water.

59

Travel Times

Pacific lamprey migration distances were calculated to the nearest tenth of a riverkilometer estimated from a NOAA navigation chart. Lamprey travel rate was estimated by theelapsed time from release to the time reported at capture divided by the total kilometers traveled.Kilometer per 24 h day estimates were also estimated if recapture data contained times that weredeemed credible. In many cases, recapture information was incomplete and thus was not used toestimate travel times.

60

Results and Interpretation


McNary Dam

Two hundred twenty-five juvenile Pacific lamprey were sampled from the 6,237 juvenilePacific lamprey collected by the juvenile salmonid collection facility at McNary Dam from Aprilthrough December 1997. Forty-five percent of the juvenile lamprey outmigration occurred duringthe month of May, with an additional 28% in June (Table 1). Macrophathalmia dominated theoutmigration in all months, particularly in the spring and accounted for over 99% of all collectedjuvenile lampreys. Ammocoetes, although scarce, were collected every month but never exceededeight per month (Table 1). Mean lengths of macrophathalmia were largest in May and June, withthe smallest mean lengths in October and November. Similarly, mean weights of macrophathalmiawere greatest in May and June, and lowest in October and November (Table 1). Only fiveammocotes were sampled for length and weight data during the entire outmigration, all withinJuly and August with lengths and weights similar to macrophathalmia sampled during the sameperiod (Table 1).

Estimated passage numbers of outmigrating macrophathalmia at McNary Dam werecalculated at approximately 156,479 during 1997. As discussed in the methods section of thisreport, the process used to estimate the abundance of these outmigrants is qualatative at best,since key variables, such as guidance efficiencies, are unknown or untested. Still, annualenumeration of outmigrating juvenile lamprey is important baseline information and is useful formonitoring trends and building long-term databases. Additionally, information from McNaryDam is particularly important as evaluating the apparent contributions of Pacific lampreypopulations from the mid-Columbia River and the Snake River basins.

Lower Monumental Dam

One hundred eighteen juvenile lampreys were sampled for length, weight, and life stageinformation from a total of 209 juvenile lamprey collected by the juvenile salmonid collectionfacility, from April through November 1, 1997. Thirty-five percent of the collected juveniles wereoutmigrating macrophathalmia, primarily in April and May, with ammocoetes dominating theremaining months (Table 2). May was the peak outmigration month at Lower Monumental Dam,the same month as noted for McNary Dam. Unlike McNary Dam, ammocoetes collected atLower Monumental Dam from June through August were the dominant life stage, comprising94% of all collected juvenile lamprey. The preponderance of this life stage is somewhat puzzling,since ammocoetes are the larval form and not transformed into the migratory-eyed form. The1997 spring runoff extended into early summer and was substantially above normal for the SnakeRiver Basin. The propensity of juvenile lamprey to migrate downstream during high water events

61

combined with the high spring runoff may partially explain the high proportion of ammocoetes inthe collections.

Length and weight data were collected on 56% of the juvenile lamprey collected at LowerMonumental Dam. In all sample months, one of the two life stages were poorly represented in thesample, greatly reducing the ability to follow temporal changes in mean lengths and weights.Mean length and weight data for both life stages from Lower Monumental dam were generallysimilar to mean values for respective life stages and months at McNary Dam (Tables 1 and 2). When substantial differences were noted, one or both samples generally contained less than sixsamples, often only 1 or 2 juvenile lamprey represented a life stage for a particular month.

Ninety-nine percent of all estimated juvenile lamprey (macrophathalmia only) passage atLower Monumental Dam in 1997 occurred in April and May (Table 2). The proportion ofmacrophathalmia outmigrants was essentially non-existent from June through the end of thepassage season in October, unlike the more gradual decline observed at McNary Dam.

Little Goose Dam

Four hundred seventy-four juvenile lamprey were collected from April through Novemberat Little Goose Dam. Macrophathalmia were the dominate life stage in the April, May,September and October collections and comprised 64% of all juvenile lamprey collected in 1997(Table 3). The ammocoete life stage was most abundant in July, but proportionally, ammocoetescollected at Little Goose Dam was substantially less compared with Lower Monumental Dam(Table 2). Approximately 45% of the collected juvenile lamprey were measured but weight datawere only collected during June (Table 3). Similar to Lower Monumental Dam samples theuneven proportions of ammocoetes and macrophathalmia in a given monthly sample reduced ourability to directly compare lengths between life stages within and between months (Table 3). Adecline in the mean lengths of ammocoetes was apparent from June to July and August, a similarpattern was suggestive for macrophathalmia, although sample numbers were minimal during thepreviously mentioned months.

The juvenile lamprey outmigration was similar to patterns at McNary and LowerMonumental dams in 1997. Approximately 55% of the juvenile lamprey passed the project inMay, with an additional 39% having migrated the previous month (Table 3). Numbers of juvenilelamprey collected from August through November at Little Goose Dam were considerable higherthan those collected at Lower Monumental during the same period (Tables 2 and 3).

Lower Granite Dam

One thousand nine hundred and forty-nine juvenile lamprey were collected at LowerGranite Dam in 1997, 69% of these were collected on a single day (Table 4). This unusual eventwas likely due to a percentage of juvenile lampreys residing within parts of the juvenile collectionsystem during the passage season and being forced out during the shutdown of the project. A

62

similar increase of macrophathalmia was also noted at Little Goose Dam, although the numberswere considerable fewer (Table 3). This event may be related to the abnormally high numbers ofammocoetes that passed the project in April and May (Table 4). At the previously discussedprojects, ammocoete numbers were a minor component of the April and May passage period(Tables 1, 2, and 3). It is possible that substantial numbers of these ammocoetes were somehowretained within the juvenile collection system and underwent transformation by the November1997 project shutdown.

Five hundred thirteen juvenile lampreys were collected to sample for length, weight, andlife stage information during 1997. Ammocoetes were the dominate life stage collected andsampled from April through October, with macrophathalmia being the only life stage sampled inNovember (Table 4). Ammocoete length and weight remained similar from May through August, with a decline in mean length noted in September sample, none were sampled in October andNovember. Some decline in the mean length of macrophathalmia was noted between the May andSeptember samples although small sample sizes and the lack of samples in June and July make itdifficult to ascertain if significant changes occurred.

Estimated passage of macrophathalmia at Lower Granite dam was the lowest of the 4dams surveyed (Table 4). Unknown sampling efficiencies at all projects mask what actual migrantnumbers are, although it is unusual that outmigrant estimates at Little Goose and LowerMonumental are quite similar in April and May, while those of Lower Granite are considerablelower, particularly since no apparent tributary source of Pacific lamprey exists between LittleGoose and Lower Granite. The overall seasonal passage trend at Lower Granite was very similarto the other two Snake River dams (Table 4), with the exception of the passage anomaly thatoccurred in November.


Abundance Estimates

At Bonneville Dam, Pacific lamprey counts were made during daytime periods by theCOE observers, except in June due to high shad abundance. Pacific lamprey counts were alsomade by a CTUIR on-site observer between July 1 and September 30, 1997. As well, CTUIRreviewed videotapes and estimated lamprey passage during a similar timeframe. The CTUIRcounts were based on 12-minute observation periods, included nighttime, and well as daytimeperiods. The total abundance estimate from the CTUIR on-site counting had a lower confidencelimit of 63,725 and an upper confidence limit of 203,945 (Table 5). These are substantially higherestimates than the COE daytime count of 22,830. The lower and upper confidence limits for theCTUIR daytime only on-site observations were 11,624 and 110,100, which encompassed theCOE estimate.

63

Monthly fish ladder passage counts at Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, McNary, IceHarbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, Lower Granite, Rock Island, Rocky Reach and Wellsdams for 1997 are presented in Table (6). Counts from the lower Columbia River projectsBonneville through McNary dams were based on 16 h counts and no counts were made atBonneville in June during peak shad passage. Counts from all other projects were based on 24 henumeration.

Based on COE fish ladder passage estimates there appears to be a 65% drop in Pacificlamprey abundance between Bonneville and The Dalles dams. This is particularly interesting sincethe Bonneville estimate does not include June passage (during the peak of the shad migration).Radio telemetry data shows a similar drop in abundance (66%) for this reach (Vella andStuehrenberg 1997). These data suggest that a substantial portion of the lamprey that crossBonneville Dam spawn in tributaries located between Bonneville and The Dalles dams. Possiblestreams could be the Wind, Little White Salmon, White Salmon, Klickitat, and Hood rivers, aswell as several other smaller streams.

Another large drop in Pacific lamprey ladder passage estimates (72%) occurs betweenJohn Day and McNary dams suggesting that the John Day River supported a population ofapproximately 10,000 spawners in 1997.

Fish ladder passage counts in the lower Snake River demonstrate an unusual trend, countswere similar at Ice Harbor and Lower Granite dams, 1,454 and 1,274, however, counts at themiddle projects Lower Monumental and Little Goose were much lower, 217 and 245. Wesuspect that Pacific lamprey are either using alternative avenues to cross these projects, such asthrough the locks, or are passing the count stations undetected.

In the mid-Columbia there is approximately a 40% drop in counts between Rock Islandand Rocky Reach dams indicating that a sizable Pacific lamprey population may persist in theWenatchee River. However, we have operated the fish count station at Tumwater Dam on theWenatchee River during most of the last 10 years between May – September and have notrecorded lamprey movement. The fish could over-winter in the lower river and go upstream priorto our salmon-counting season in May or spawn in Icicle Creek.

Passage over the last dams in the Snake and Columbia rivers appears to be seriously low.Only 3% of the Pacific lamprey that crossed Bonneville Dam were counted at Lower Granite Damand approximately 6% crossed Wells Dam.

Difficulties with Counting Pacific Lamprey

Fish count stations have been designed for salmonid passage and enumeration. Lampreyrequirements could be very different. Up- and downstream movement creates problems forenumerating Pacific lamprey. For example, at the Washington Shore Count Station the upstream

64

lamprey detection’s were estimated at 576,542 and downstream estimate was 542,330 for thenighttime period between July 1 and September 30, 1997, based on counts from 283 12-minuteobservation periods. This demonstrates that Pacific lamprey were detected and counted a total of1,118,872 times and these detection’s resulted in a net passage estimate of 34,065 fish. Based onthese data, for every Pacific lamprey observation there is only a 3% chance that it will result in anet upstream count. Lamprey movement at the Bonneville count stations appears to be the mostextreme, however, this phenomena is observed elsewhere. Clearly, work needs to be done atBonneville Dam to try to correct this problem to allow more precise passage estimates to bemade.

Mean local efficiency of Pacific lamprey using the Bradford Island ladder (32.8%, SE =3.027, N = 6) was significantly higher than Washington Shore (12.5%, SE = 3.080, N=6;Wilcoxon Test P = 0.028). All local efficiency estimates for Bradford Island were significantlyhigher than Washington Shore (Table 7). Local efficiency calculated for Bradford Island (32.8%)is comparable to the local efficiency calculated for sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus (35.4%, SE= 7.94) crossing a modified Ice Harbor-type fishway (Haro and Kynard 1997). Haro and Kynard(1997) cited high water velocity, air entrainment, and turbulence within the fishway as factorsinhibiting sea lamprey passage by disrupting upstream migratory motivation and visual andrheotactic orientation.

By comparing counts from 12-minute observation intervals, we found that video-basedPacific lamprey counts were significantly less than on-site counts made at Bradford Island in 1997(Table 8). This suggests that there may be a problem with the facility that prevents some lampreypassage from being recorded at Bradford Island. This problem may be the lack of contrastbetween fish and the floor of the counting slot or fish may pass below the window in the rotatingbrush grove. It may be possible for an observer to see these fish but the video camera’s resolutionor the site lighting is insufficient for imaging. Modifications to the Bradford Island count stationshould be made to eliminate differences between video-based and on-site counts. Thesemodifications could include moving the passing fish up higher in the water column by filling therotating brush grove, or installing a small (4 inch high) ramp in the floor of the counting slot. Changes in lighting configuration could be made as well as contrast enhancement measures. Contrast could be improved by painting all surfaces that are in the video camera’s field of viewwhite. Using a similar approach, up- and downstream Pacific lamprey counts at the WashingtonShore ladder were found to be similar (Table 8) in 1997, however net passage was much higherfor the on-site enumeration’s.

It appears that there may be a ladder preference by Pacific lamprey at Bonneville Dam. Pacific lamprey count data from Washington Shore and Bradford Island count stations clearlydemonstrate that more fish passed the on Washington Shore. This holds when reviewing the COEcounts, the CTUIR on-site counts, and the CTUIR video-based counts that showed preferences toWashington Shore of 78%, 62%, and 76%, respectively. An alternative hypothesis would be thatthe apparent preference is a result of lamprey being diverted around the Bradford Island countstation window. Support for this explanation comes from radio tracking data that detected a

65

tagged lamprey in the make-up water channel at the top of the Bradford Island ladder (Vella andStuehrenberg 1997). Accessing this channel enables Pacific lamprey to bypass the fish countstation window. Vella and Stuehrenberg (1997) also reported observations of other Pacificlamprey climbing the tainter gate at the upstream end of this channel which could lead fish to theforebay. No ladder preference has been demonstrated by radio tagged Pacific lamprey atBonneville Dams in 1996 and 1997 based on 66 ladder exit detections (Vella and Stuehrenberg1997).

If a large portion of Pacific lamprey using the Bradford Island ladder are in fact bypassingthe count station window using the make-up water channel, the viability of successful lampreypassage through this avenue needs to be addressed. If it is determined that this passageway is notharming lamprey alternative methods of indexing abundance in it must be investigated.

Lamprey activity in the Bonneville Dam fish count station windows was least between0600 and 1900 hours in 1997 (Figure 4), similar to the two previous years (Jackson et al. 1997).The period of greatest activity was between 2000 and 0400 hours.

Length Frequency Estimates

A total of 991 lamprey images were measured from video recordings, 253 from IceHarbor, 614 from Bonneville, and 124 from Wells dam recordings. The relative frequency ofthese data was computed and plotted as a function of one-inch length classes (Figure 5). Themodes from the Wells and Ice Harbor dam’s data were 23 inches, which is the same as in 1997(Jackson et al. 1997). The mean lengths were 22.9, 22.9, and 22.7 inches for Ice Harbor,Bonneville, and Wells dam’s respectively.

We participated in a lamprey salvage operation at John Day Dam on 1/8/98. These fishwere trapped in the fish ladder during dewatering. Prior to releasing these fish upstream, weanesthetized and 120 of them. The length frequency plot from these data is presented in Figure(6). The length groups were near-normally distributed with a mode of 25 inches. The meanlength was 24.5 inches from a sample size of 120 fish. A length-weight relationship wasdeveloped from this sample of fish and is presented in Figure (7).

During the Petersen Disc Tag experiment, we collected additional length and weight datafrom Pacific lamprey trapped on a weekly basis at Bonneville Dam. A total 323 fish weremeasured, over the 12 weeks of study. The length frequency distribution had a single mode at the27 inch group (Figure 8). Pacific lamprey lengths did not vary among sample weeks (P = 0.269; F= 1.241). Pacific lamprey weights were highly correlated with length (Pearson r = 0.844) and didnot vary among sample weeks (P = 0.183; F = 1.429).

66

Petersen Disc Tag Study

The intent of this experiment was to mark a number of adult Pacific lamprey as theycrossed Bonneville Dam and follow those fish through the upstream migration by usingobservations of tagged fish as they passed fish counting stations.

First, we tested two marking techniques. One technique was freeze branding a ¾” numberon the side of a lamprey and the other technique utilized a 13 mm Petersen disc tag. Freezebrands became indiscernible after only a few days and retention of the Petersen disc was 100%after 2 weeks. Therefore, we used individually numbered Petersen discs with 15 different colorcombinations to differentiate sample weeks.

Second, we tagged captured lamprey for 12 weeks and released each group aboveBonneville Dam. Groups of tags with similar color combinations could be followed through theColumbia Basin fish passage facilities (i.e. fish count stations) as they moved through the system.No tagged lamprey were observed or recorded at any fish counting station operated by the ArmyCorps of Engineers (COE) or the various Public Utility Districts (PUD’s) in the Columbia andSnake rivers. In addition, fish salvage operations at lower Columbia River COE dams routinelysalvage hundreds of Pacific lamprey that remain in the fish passage systems during the wintermonths. Salvage personnel were alerted to the presence of tagged lamprey in the Columbia Riverand asked to record data if encountered any marked fish. No tagged lamprey were observedduring the salvage operations.

Tags of 40 recaptured lamprey were returned to CRITFC project staff. Based ondiscussions with tribal fishers who returned lamprey tags, the number of recaptured lamprey likelyexceeded the 40 that were reported. Due to incomplete or delayed returns, data from only 13 ofthe returned tags were considered suitable for analysis. The most common problem was the failureon the part of the individual who captured the tagged lamprey to record the date, time andlocation of capture. Project staff placed “reward” posters in areas frequented by tribal fishers inan effort to increase the number and quality of the returns.

Tag returns came from two general areas. The first area was the scaffold fishery near TheDalles Dam, known locally as “Lone Pine”. Most returns in this area (Rkm 309.3) occurred priorto the fall commercial salmon season that began in September (Table 9). In this location, taggedlampreys were incidentally captured in the monofilament nylon mesh of hoop nets fished fromscaffolds. In addition to hoop net recaptures in the “Lone Pine” area, two tagged lamprey wererecaptured in Fifteen Mile Creek. This tributary joins the Columbia River in the “Lone Pine” areaand is a traditional place to gather Pacific lamprey. Unlike the incidental catches in the hoop nets,these tagged lamprey were intentionally taken by tribal fishers for subsistence.

The second area of tag returns occurred when tagged lamprey were captured incidentiallyin gillnets during the fall commercial salmon season. Several tagged Pacific lamprey werecaptured in gillnets near the point of release, Rkm 243 (Figure 9). Returned tags with data useable

67

for analysis do not accurately reflect the increased numbers of tagged lamprey captured during thefall commercial salmon season; since many tags were turned in days or weeks after capture.Tagged lamprey captured by tribal fishers were usually kept and eaten, although at least one tribalfisher was known to have released five tagged lamprey from a single net.

Recaptures of tagged lamprey demonstrate that lamprey are capable of migrating at ratesthat far exceed those reported in the literature (Table 9). Kan (1975) reported that Pacificlamprey in Clear Creek of the John Day River system could travel an estimated 4.5 km per day. Wigley (1959) reported sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) range an average of 3.2 km per day.The similarity of median and mean daily and total travel times clearly shows that Pacific lampreyare capable of considerable movement. The ranges exhibited from the recaptures clearlydemonstrates that in reservoir habitat, Pacific lamprey can migrate substantial distances in a 24 hperiod.

We received and paid rewards on forty tags. Assuming a moderate 50% non-compliancerate, approximately 60 tagged lamprey were recaptured from the pool of 323 tagged lamprey,leaving 263 tagged lamprey in the Columbia River. At the time of report preparation, we havenot received any additional tags or information regarding tagged lamprey upstream of The DallesDam. By mid-summer 1998, all of the tagged lamprey from the 1997 investigation will havecompleted spawning and died. The permanency of the tags combined with their bright colorationmay result in latent returns from spawning areas, adding to our information base regardingmigratory timing and stock specificity.

68

Recommendations


1. Require comprehensive testing and monitoring of fixed bar screens to determineimpingement rates of juvenile lamprey prior to system-wide implementation of thisguidance equipment.

2. Maintain data collection (e.g. length, weight, maturation level, condition, etc.) on juvenilelamprey at all juvenile collection facilities.

3. Attempt the development of passage indices for lamprey at selected projects using existingdata.

4. Attempt to quantify the survival curves for juvenile lamprey using pressure chamber teststo simulate draft tube pressure extremes.

5. Develop proposals for funding of juvenile lamprey mainstem passage studies, addressinglosses at mainstem hyropower dams from juvenile salmonid bypass structures (e.g. fixedbar and extended fixed bar screens).

6. Require that the number data from the incidentially collected juvenile lamprey besubmitted to and reported annually by the Fish Passage Center (FPC) to monitor changesin juvenile lamprey outmigrations over time.


1. Continue to estimate lamprey passage and length frequency at Bonneville, Ice Harbor,Lower Granite, Rock Island, and Wells dams using on-site counts or videography.

2. Modify fish counting stations to improve lamprey-counting precision.

3. Identify lamprey migration routes through dams that enable them to bypass count stationwindows.

4. Request that adult lamprey count numbers be submitted annually to the Fish Passage Center for inclusion within its annual fish passage reports.

69

References

Hammond, R. J. 1979. Larval biology of the Pacific lamprey, Entosphenus tridentatus(Gairdner), of the Potlatch River, Idaho. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow,Idaho. 44pp.

Haro, A., and B. Kynard. 1997. Video evaluation of passage efficiency of American shad and sealamprey in a modified Ice Harbor fishway. North American Journal of FisheriesManagement. 17:981-987.

Jackson, A.D., P.D. Kissner, D.R. Hatch, B.L. Parker, M.S. Fitzpatrick, D.A. Close, and H.Li. 1997. Pacific lamprey research and restoration. Annual Report 1996 to the BonnevillePower Administration, Project Number 94-026, Portland, Oregon.

Kan, T.T. 1975. Systematics, Variation, Distribution, and Biology of Lampreys of theGenus Lampetra in Oregon. PhD Dissertation, Oregon State University, 194 pp.

Long, C.W. 1968. Diel movement and vertical distribution of juvenile anadromous fish in turbineintakes. Fishery Bulletin 66:599-609.

Mendenhall, W. 1983. Introduction to probability and statistics. Sixth Edition. PWS Publishers,Boston, Massachusetts.

Scheaffer, R.L., W. Mendenhall, and L. Ott. 1990. Elementary survey sampling. Fourth edition,PWS-Kent Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.

Vella, J. and L. Steuhrenberg. 1997. Migration patterns of Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata)in the lower Columbia River, 1997. Annual Report of Research to the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers, Delivery Order E9650021, Portland District, Portland, Oregon.

Wigley, R.L. 1959. Life history of the sea lamprey of Cayuga Lake, New York. FisheriesBulletin, United States Fish and Wildlife Service 59:559-617.

70

Table 1. Life history and passage data for juvenile Pacific lamprey sampled at the McNary Damjuvenile salmonid collection facility from May through December 1997. The 24-hour samplingrate of the juvenile salmonid bypass flow varied often within a month. Monthly passage estimatesare sums of the daily estimates. Juvenile lamprey were recorded as “browns” or “silvers”,referring to ammocoetes or macrophathalmia, respectively.

Mean Mean Total Minimum juvenilelamprey

Sample length in mm weight in g Life number 24 h samplingpassage estimate (“silvers only”)

Month size (N) (SE) (SE) stage collected rate(range) (daily counts X 24 h sampling rate)

April - - - Silver 2,823 0.033-0.166 26,8- - - Brown 6

May 16 153.6(2.86) 4.3(0.29) Silver 1,766 0.013-0.033 97,0- - - Brown 5

June 4 155.8(5.95) 4.5(0.87)Silver 743 0.006-0.066 19,3- - - Brown 6

July 19 143.6(2.68) 3.9(0.13) Silver 62 0.067-0.033 5,32 146.0(5.00) 4.0(0.00) Brown 8

August 64 144.8(1.23) 3.8(0.11) Silver 151 0.010-0.066 4,73 137.6(4.97) 4.0(1.00) Brown 3

September 96 144.8(0.89) 4.3(0.80) Silver 254 0.066-0.250 1,5- - - Brown 1

October 4 138.0(3.49) 3.7(0.21) Silver 196 0.166-0.250 7- - - Brown 0

November 4 137.8(3.52) 3.3(0.05) Silver 158 0.250 6- - - Brown 1

December 12 140.8(2.61) 4.0(0.17) Silver 56 0.250 2- - - Brown 0

71

Table 2. Life history and passage data for juvenile Pacific lamprey sampled at the LowerMonumental Dam juvenile salmonid collection facility from May through November 1, 1997. The24-hour sampling rate of the juvenile salmonid bypass flow varied often within a month. Monthlypassage estimates are sums of the daily estimates. Juvenile lamprey were recorded as “browns” or“silvers”, referring to ammocoetes or macrophathalmia, respectively.




April 28 146.3(1.96) - Silver 39 0.01-0.25 1,52 147.5(2.5) - Brown 3

May 6 156.6(5.85) 4.3(0.29) Silver 21 0.007-0.033 2,71 160.0 - Brown 1

June 1 160 - Silver 1 0.02-0.2538 151.0(1.35) 4.6(0.29)Brown 38

July 3 155.8(7.64) 3.0(0.00) Silver 6 0.033-1.0026 146.3(2.10) 4.9(0.30) Brown 79

August 1 145.0 3.0 Silver 1 1.00 16 140.8(3.96) - Brown 6

September - - - Silver 0 1.001 150.0 - Brown 1

October 1 155.0 - Silver 1 1.00- - - Brown 0

November1 4 138.8(4.27) 4.0(0.40) Silver 4 1.00- - - Brown 8

December2

1 The November sample is a one day sample, since the facility shutdown occurred on November 1st

1997.2 No sampling conducted during December 1997.

72

Table 3. Life history and passage data for juvenile Pacific lamprey sampled at the Little GooseDam juvenile salmonid collection facility from May through November 1, 1997. The 24-hoursampling rate of the juvenile salmonid bypass flow varied often within a month. Monthly passageestimates are sums of the daily estimates. Juvenile lamprey were recorded as “browns” or“silvers”, referring to ammocoetes or macrophathalmia, respectively.




April 4 158.8(3.14) - Silver 51 0.006-0.250 2,0- - - Brown 3

May 10 148.5(2.24) - Silver 47 0.006-0.250 2,7- - - Brown 2

June 7 146.1(3.08) 3.6(0.29) Silver 18 0.006-0.18524 153.8(1.82) 5.6(0.28)Brown 46

July 3 148.3(7.26) - Silver 5 0.025-0.25082 145.4(1.23) - Brown 83

August 1 140.0 - Silver 3 0.25-1.00613 145.0(0.98) - Brown 28

September 44 141.7(1.46) - Silver 53 1.001 150.0(6.01) - Brown 1

October 17 141.3(1.39) - Silver 22 1.002 157.5(12.5) - Brown 2

November1 - - - Silver 103 1.00 1- - - Brown 5

December2

1 The November count was a one day sample, during project shutdown. The high numbers were probablyfrom an accumulation of juvenile lamprey residing in the juvenile fish collection system over an unknownperiod of time.2 No sampling conducted after November 1, 1997.

73

Table 4. Life history and passage data for juvenile Pacific lamprey sampled at the Lower GraniteDam juvenile salmonid collection facility from May through November 1, 1997. The 24-hoursampling rate of the juvenile salmonid bypass flow varied often within a month. Monthly passageestimates are sums of the daily estimates. Juvenile lamprey were recorded as “browns” or“silvers”, referring to ammocoetes or macrophathalmia, respectively.




April - - - Silver 20 0.010-0.100 1,0- - - Brown 15

May 6 147.8(5.79) - Silver 7 0.006-0.05 1,024 156.3(1.46) - Brown 39

June 0 - - Silver 0 0.04-0.160130 - - Brown 136

July 0 - - Silver 0 0.16-0.25294 152.3(0.59) 7.5(0.08) Brown 354

August 1 150.0 7.3 Silver 1 0.25-1.0018 153.6(3.04) 8.2(0.63) Brown 9

September 13 142.2(1.73) 7.0(0.38) Silver 13 1.004 144.8(6.44) 7.2(1.07) Brown 4

October - - - Silver 1 1.00- - - Brown 0

November1 33 154.3(1.15) 6.9(0.190) Silver 1,350 1.00 1,30 - - Brown 0

December2

1 High numbers from this one-day system shutdown sample were likely due to juvenile lamprey accumulatingand residing in the collection system over a period of time.2 No sampling conducted after November 1, 1997.

74

Table 5. Pacific lamprey passage estimates (95% bound) derived from CTUIR on-siteobservations at Bonneville Dam in 1997.

Bradford Island Washington ShoreStrata Daytime (+/-) Nighttime (+/-) Daytime (+/-) Nighttime (+/-)7/1-15 0 0 25,212 4,324 18,800 30,802 -16,077 14,8267/16-31 4,867 3,322 7,934 2,049 11,874 7,213 17,336 6,0198/1-15 3,600 2,980 2,813 2,000 6,057 2,662 3,147 2,0318/16-31 2,238 1,063 1,176 565 3,287 1,034 7,236 2,2189/1-15 384 422 1,080 580 10,585 5,316 17,895 4,0539/16-30 747 411 692 475 -1,575 7,571 4,528 1,904Total 11,835 22,532 38,908 4,766 49,027 26,706 34,065 16,106

75

Table 6. Estimated total adult Pacific lamprey passage by month at Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, Lower Granite, Rock Island, Rocky Reach and Wells dams in 1997.

BonnevilleCOE

TheDalles

JohnDay

McNary IceHarbor

LowerMonumental

LittleGoose

LowerGranite

RockIsland

RockyReach

Wells

JanuaryFebruary

MarchApril 4 1May 1,691 4 216 7 1 2June - 392 114 35 19 4 2 2 12 8July 1,939 8,377 5,493 897 340 61 49 78 26 16 6

August 9,783 3,374 5,518 2,343 796 124 162 924 1,154 761 91September 8,643 2,469 2,807 882 267 27 35 247 1,008 598 547

October 770 219 696 56 25 1 -3 22 114 30 121November 0 0 0 5December 0 0 0

Total 22,830 14,835 14,845 4,213 1,454 217 245 1,274 2,321 1,405 773

76

Table 7. Pacific lamprey ladder ascending efficiency and (SE) at Bonneville Dam in 1997. All comparisons (daytime, nighttime, and total) between Bradford Island andWashington Shore were significantly different (P = 0.028) using a two-sampleWilcoxon Test.

Bradford Island Washington ShoreStrata Daytime

EfficiencyNighttimeEfficiency

TotalEfficiency

DaytimeEfficiency

NighttimeEfficiency

TotalEfficiency

7/1-15/97 35.1 21.5 27.0 8.1 -8.2 0.67/16-31/97 34.4 19.0 22.9 19.3 11.0 13.38/1-15/97 57.1 20.1 31.6 37.1 7.1 15.48/16-31/97 54.3 30.1 41.8 32.1 13.9 16.99/1-15/97 50.0 38.1 40.6 28.1 19.3 21.89/16-30/97 68.4 21.0 33.0 -28.7 14.4 7.2Mean 49.9 (5.39) 25.0 (3.09) 32.8 (3.03) 16.0 (9.87) 9.6 (3.92) 12.5 (3.08)

77

Table 8. Summary of lamprey passage counts made at the Bradford Island and WashingtonShore count stations at Bonneville Dam in 1997. On-site counts wereobservations recorded over 12 minute intervals and video-based counts were madefrom recordings made during the same 12 minute intervals. A total of 50 intervals(34 at Bradford Island and 16 at Washington Shore) were included in the analysis. Significant differences (in italics) were based on paired Wilcoxon tests withα=0.05.

On-site Count Video Count P value

Bradford Island Upstream 96 45 <0.01 “ “ Downstream 82 49 0.01

Washington Shore Upstream 177 1430.10 “ “Downstream 126 141 0.67

Total Dam Upstream 273 188 <0.01Downstream 208 190 0.05

78

Table. 9 Length, weight, and migration data on recaptured Pacific lamprey disk tagged at Bonneville Dam, andreleased at Stevenson, Washington in 1997. Pacific lamprey were released at river kilometers 243.3, and243.4.

Length Weight Tag Date Recapture Recapture Days at Total distance Travel

(mm) (g) no. tagged date location(Rkm) large traveled(Rkm) (Rkm/day)

680.0 443.0 1366 7/14/98 7/24/97 309.3 10.0 66.0 6.6

731.0 597.0 1313 7/14/98 7/16/97 309.3 2.0 66.0 33.0

656.0 462.0 1384 7/16/98 7/18/97 309.3 2.0 66.0 33.0

712.0 547.0 409 7/24/98 8/06/98 309.6 13.0 66.3 5.2

630.0 435.0 1014 8/14/98 8/16/97 309.3 2.0 66.0 33.0

615.0 367.0 1006 8/12/98 8/17/97 309.9 5.0 66.7 13.4

662.0 412.0 1211 9/11/98 9/12/97 309.3 1.0 65.8 65.8

652.0 413.0 1233 9/11/98 9/12/97 309.3 1.0 65.8 65.8

740.0 640.0 305 9/18/98 9/19/97 243.8 1.0 0.32 0.32

668.0 454.0 805 8/28/98 8/30/97 243.8 2.0 0.32 0.16

634.0 410.0 652 9/04/98 9/06/97 243.8 2.0 0.32 0.16

650.0 413.0 637 9/04/98 9/07/97 308.0 3.0 64.6 21.6

706.0 540.0 614 9/04/98 9/05/97 292.2 1.0 48.3 48.8

Mean672.0 471.8 292.9 5.6 49.4 25.1Median662.0 443.0 309.3 3.2 65.8 21.6

C.I(651.4-692.6) (428.6-515.0) (278.1-307.7) (2.4-8.8) (34.6-64.2) (12.7-37.5)

79

80

Figure 7. Length and weight relationship of 120 Pacific lamprey sampled at John DayDam on 1/8/98 (R2 = 0.846).

Appendix A.

Daily CountsDalles John

DayMcNary Ice

HarborLittle

GooseLower

MonumentalLowerGranite

RockIsland

RockyReach

Wells

Month Day Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam DamApril 1 0 0 0 0 0April 2 0 0 0 0 0April 3 0 0 0 0 0April 4 0 0 0 0 0April 5 0 0 0 0 0April 6 0 0 0 0 0April 7 0 0 0 0 0April 8 0 0 0 0 0April 9 0 0 0 0 0April 10 0 0 0 0 0April 11 0 0 0 0 0April 12 0 0 0 0 0April 13 0 0 0 0 0April 14 0 0 0 0 0April 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0April 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0April 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0April 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0April 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0April 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0April 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0April 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0April 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0April 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0April 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0April 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0April 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0April 28 0 0 0 0 1 0 0April 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0April 30 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0

May 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 10 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0May 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81

May 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 15 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0May 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 23 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0May 24 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0May 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May 31 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

June 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0June 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0June 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0June 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0June 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0June 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0June 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0June 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4June 9 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0June 10 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0June 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0June 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0June 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1June 14 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1June 15 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0June 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0June 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0June 18 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1June 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1June 20 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0June 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0June 22 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0June 23 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0June 24 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0June 25 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 0June 26 3 1 1 0 1 1 0 0June 27 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0June 28 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0June 29 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0June 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

July 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0July 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0July 3 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0July 4 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0July 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0July 6 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 0July 7 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 0July 8 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0July 9 9 0 0 1 0 0 2 0July 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0July 11 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0July 12 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0July 13 13 4 0 0 0 0 1 3July 14 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 1July 15 10 2 0 1 1 1 0 0July 16 20 11 -1 0 0 0 0 0July 17 24 8 0 1 0 0 1 0July 18 25 16 1 4 0 0 1 0July 19 50 13 1 1 0 0 0 0July 20 52 22 0 2 0 0 4 0July 21 79 18 1 1 2 0 0 0July 22 69 14 0 6 1 0 1 0July 23 40 16 1 4 0 0 0 0July 24 34 31 3 6 2 2 2 0July 25 28 25 5 5 2 2 0 0July 26 33 23 5 9 1 0 1 0July 27 61 7 7 6 15 1 0 0July 28 36 29 9 3 11 1 1 1July 29 60 37 4 0 12 1 0 1July 30 102 26 8 4 21 2 0 0July 31 100 27 5 7 8 5 1 0

August 1 141 29 10 10 15 5 1 3August 2 97 76 3 10 12 2 2 1August 3 83 61 3 4 21 5 4 0August 4 60 37 10 5 23 2 2 0

82

August 5 76 44 7 9 35 7 2 0August 6 46 49 2 4 29 8 4 1August 7 70 30 7 5 17 10 6 0August 8 121 31 4 3 5 15 13 0August 9 76 20 7 2 51 6 18 1August 10 54 15 6 2 29 18 11 4August 11 116 39 5 5 23 14 2 2August 12 95 10 9 5 26 19 3 1August 13 108 21 5 6 35 30 5 0August 14 96 7 8 3 31 17 12 0August 15 78 31 2 3 32 30 19 0August 16 109 9 4 5 35 39 21 0August 17 47 29 5 3 38 41 35 1August 18 56 14 2 4 26 54 7 1August 19 99 15 5 2 34 50 10 1August 20 82 22 6 5 33 35 44 1August 21 68 16 1 1 34 46 6 5August 22 42 25 5 3 38 55 8 6August 23 42 26 6 6 17 74 26 5August 24 61 21 7 3 50 62 66 6August 25 80 21 5 4 30 49 60 7August 26 91 31 4 6 46 80 45 7August 27 74 11 4 1 46 69 75 6August 28 53 12 4 2 26 163 57 12August 29 56 18 6 2 33 56 56 7August 30 51 10 6 1 25 49 85 7August 31 15 16 4 1 29 44 56 6

September 1 37 21 5 2 17 64 8 4September 2 45 36 1 0 9 88 10 18September 3 52 17 3 0 19 81 11 7September 4 57 12 1 0 25 59 42 15September 5 53 15 0 4 18 43 57 6September 6 38 22 0 5 13 44 79 15September 7 40 13 0 1 23 47 36 27September 8 27 11 0 1 10 65 32 20September 9 32 4 2 0 6 55 54 39September 10 42 12 1 1 7 32 42 38September 11 38 11 1 1 5 48 18 27September 12 47 9 0 0 6 19 9 30September 13 33 4 1 0 4 26 3 26September 14 31 4 4 1 8 22 4 13September 15 45 7 1 0 6 11 11 13September 16 29 14 3 1 13 17 8 30September 17 20 12 3 4 7 20 20 15September 18 19 3 2 1 9 12 10 11September 19 13 9 1 0 4 14 24 31September 20 7 4 0 0 4 50 9 14September 21 24 1 -1 1 0 7 14 13September 22 15 7 1 2 1 23 15 21September 23 14 2 1 0 1 23 18 23September 24 19 2 0 0 3 14 9 22September 25 19 0 1 1 2 18 9 18September 26 24 3 0 0 1 27 15 3September 27 17 3 2 0 8 23 5 3September 28 14 3 3 0 9 30 5 5September 29 18 2 -1 0 5 17 15 24September 30 13 4 0 1 4 9 6 16

October 1 8 0 -1 0 2 16 3 8October 2 8 5 0 0 4 3 10 12October 3 8 2 0 1 6 9 2 13October 4 7 1 0 1 0 12 0 8October 5 4 2 0 1 1 10 5 5October 6 1 0 -1 0 3 11 1 6October 7 5 2 -1 0 1 12 0 12October 8 5 4 0 0 1 4 1 7October 9 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 2October 10 2 0 0 0 0 7 1 8October 11 1 1 0 0 0 5 1 7October 12 0 3 2 0 0 3 0 5October 13 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1October 14 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 9October 15 0 0 0 -1 0 5 0 4October 16 0 0 0 -1 0 2 0 8October 17 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1October 18 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 1October 19 1 0 -1 0 1 2 0 3October 20 0 0 -2 0 1 1 0 0October 21 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0October 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0October 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0October 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0October 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1October 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0October 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0October 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0October 29 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

83

October 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0October 31 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

November 1 0 0 0November 2 0 0 0November 3 1 0 0November 4 0 0 0November 5 2 0 0November 6 1 0 0November 7 1 0 0November 8 0 0 0November 9 0 0 0November 10 0 0 0November 11 0 0 0November 12 0 0 0November 13 0 0 0November 14 0 0 0November 15 0 0November 16 0November 17November 18November 19November 20November 21November 22November 23November 24November 25November 26November 27November 28November 29November 30

ANNUAL REPORT

for

Pacific Lamprey Research and Restoration Project

Part (C) Adult Passage Research

by

David A. Close, Martin S. Fitzpatrick, and Hiram W. LiOregon Cooperative Fishery Research Unit

Department of Fisheries and WildlifeOregon State University

Corvallis, OR 97331-3803

84

Project Agreement No. 406-97

Year ending 31 December 1997

85

Abstract

To study the potential impact of dam passage on the reproductive success of adult

Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata), methods such as radio-tracking are being used by

biologists in the Columbia River Basin. However, the key assumption in studies that employ

radio tags is that tagged animals are representative in performance of untagged animals. To test

this assumption, 7.4 g radio tagged adult Pacific lamprey were assessed for physiological recovery

and swimming performance after the stress of a tagging procedure. Plasma glucose levels in radio

tagged animals were significantly elevated until day four and seven. Plasma glucose levels in

radio tagged animals were significantly lower than control animals by 30, 60, and 90 days after

surgery. Swimming performance decreased significantly between control and tagged lamprey

one hour after surgery. However, swimming time was not different between control and tagged

fish at 24 and 168 hours after surgery. Oxygen consumption differed significantly between

control and tagged fish in the one-hour group, however there was no difference at 24 and 168

hours. The results suggest that 7.4 g radio tagged lamprey should be held a minimum of 24 hours

before release. The lower glucose levels at 30, 60, and 90 days in tagged fish suggest possible

chronic stress.

86

Table of Contents

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………….94

Introduction………………………………………………………………………95

Methods…………………………………………………………………………..95

Results……………………………………………………………………………98

Discussion………………………………………………………………………..99

Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………..100

References………………………………………………………………………..100

87

List of figures

Figure 1. Plasma levels of glucose in adult Pacific lamprey after surgical implantation.

Figure 2. Ventilation rates of adult Pacific lamprey after tag implantation.

Figure 3. Swimming time of adult Pacific lamprey after tag implantation.

Figure 4. Oxygen consumption of adult Pacific lamprey after swimming exhaustion.

88

Introduction

The reasons for the decline of Pacific lamprey populations throughout the

Columbia River Basin remain unknown. Many factors may have contributed to the decline of

Pacific lamprey including hydroelectric projects. Hydroelectric projects may be causing migration

delay and possibly impeding passage of lamprey to spawning areas in the interior basin. In order

to assess the role of hydroelectric project impacts on migration of lamprey, methods need to be

developed to examine the behavior of lamprey passing through the dams. In 1996, the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) started using radiotelemetry to follow movement around the

Columbia River dams. One of the assumptions of a radiotelemetry study is that the radio-tagged

individuals represent the free-swimming fish; however this assumption must be verified for

lamprey. The first part of the verification process is to examine if radio-tagged lamprey recover

from the stress of surgical implantation of radio tags. The second part of the evaluation is to

determine if radio tagged lamprey have reduced swimming performance.

Methods

Animals: Adult Pacific lamprey were collected at Willamette Falls, Oregon during

July 1997 and transported to the Fish Performance and Genetics Laboratory at Corvallis, Oregon.

Lamprey were treated with oxytetricycline at a dose of .5 ml per kg of fish for bacterial infections

and treated with formaldehyde 37% (formalin) for external parasites. Fish were maintained in

flow through 0.9 m diameter tanks supplied by well water at a temperature of 12-13°C. Adult

89

lampreys do not feed during the freshwater phase, therefore, the fish were not fed during the

study.

Experimental Design: The first experiment was designed to determine time to

recovery from stress after tag implantation. In experiment 1A, fish were anesthetized in MS-222

buffered with sodium bicarbonate and injected with pit tags (passive integrated transponder).

Lamprey were distributed to holding tanks to acclimate for 2 weeks (n=10/tank; 2 tanks/sampling

time). Each tank was randomly assigned a treatment control or tagged (i.e. no individual fish was

sampled more than once). Lamprey were anesthetized and implanted with a 7.4 g tag into the

body cavity. Control fish were treated the same as tagged fish, except for no surgery or tag

implantation was performed. At 3, 24, 96, and 168 hours after completion of surgery, the fish

were anesthetized and sampled for blood. The second experiment (1B) was designed to examine

the chronic effects of surgical implantation of radio tags. Lamprey from experiment 1A were

maintained in tanks and sampled for blood at 30, 60, and 90 days after surgery. Lamprey were

sampled the same as the previous experiment excluding the 168 hour fish. In experiment 2A,

swimming performance of radio-tagged individuals were tested at 1, 24, and 168 hours after

surgery. Eight controls and tagged lamprey at each time were tested individually. Adult lamprey

were anesthetized in MS-222 buffered with sodium bicarbonate and then surgically implanted with

the 7.4 g tag. Fish were acclimated in the flume one-hour before starting the flow. Ventilation

rate was counted (beats/min.) at 5, 30, and 60 minutes after placement in the flume. The flume

was lined with a high-density polyethylene aqua-net grid. The lining in the flume prevented the

lamprey from attaching on the walls of the flume. After an hour, the flow was turned on and the

90

lamprey were acclimated to swimming for 10 minutes (5 minutes for both 20 and 30 cm/sec).

After swimming acclimation, the flow was increased to 40 cm/sec. An electrical current (12-volt

lantern battery) was applied to keep the lamprey off the back screen. The lamprey were

considered exhausted when the animal could not get off the back screen. After one hour of

swimming the test was ended. The lamprey were then taken out of the flume and placed into a

respirometer. The dissolved oxygen levels were recorded at 5 and 30 minutes after swimming

exhaustion.

Sampling. Lampreys were anesthetized in tricane methansulfonate (MS-222) .08

g/L buffered with sodium bicarbonate and then a blood sample was collected from the caudal vein

with a vacutainer needle. The plasma was separated by centrifugation and stored for analysis at -

80°C. In experiment 2A, ventilation rate was recorded during the hour acclimation in the flume.

Swimming performance was measured by time to exhaustion. Lamprey unable to push themselves

off the back screen were considered exhausted and time was recorded. Water samples were

collected from the respirometer into a graduated cylinder and dissolved oxygen levels measured.

Plasma samples were analyzed for glucose by colorometric assay (Wedemeyer and Yasutake

1977). Observation of ventilation rate (beats/min) was recorded during the acclimation in flume.

Time to swimming exhaustion was recorded by use of stopwatch. Time spent on the back screen

was subtracted from total swimming time. Oxygen consumption after swimming performance

was determined by containing fish in a respirometer and measuring dissolved oxygen with a meter

(Cech 1990).

91

Statistical analysis. Plasma levels of glucose, and ventilation rate were compared

by ANOVA followed by multiple range testing by use of Duncan’s LSD method.. The

significance levels were set at p≤0.05. Ventilation rates were compared by repeated measure

ANOVA. Swim time was compared by the nonparametric tool Mann-Whitney U test. The

significance level was set at p≤0.05. Oxygen consumption was compared by unpaired t-test

(p≤0.05).

Results

In experiment 1A, plasma glucose levels at 3 and 24 hours did differ significantly

between control and tagged lamprey, However, by 96 and 168 hours glucose levels in tagged fish

were not significantly different (p>0.05) than controls (Fig. 1). In experiment 1B, plasma glucose

levels at 30, 60, and 90 days were significantly different (p<0.05) between control and tagged

adult lamprey through time (Fig. 1).

In experiment 2A, ventilation rate at 1, 24, and 168 hours did not differ

significantly (p>0.05) between control and tagged lamprey (Fig. 2). Ventilation rate did decrease

significantly (p<0.05) from 5 to 30 minutes in both control and tagged fish at 1, 24, and 168 hours

after tagging. Ventilation rate did not differ significantly (p>0.05) from 30 to 60 minutes between

control and tagged fish. In experiment 2B, Swimming time was significantly different (p<0.05)

between control and tagged lamprey at 1 hour after surgery. Swimming time was not significantly

92

different between control and tagged lamprey at 24 and 168 hours (7 days), after surgery (Fig. 3).

In experiment 2C, Oxygen consumption was significantly different (p<0.05) between control and

tagged lamprey 1 hour after surgery, however there was not a difference between control and

tagged lamprey after 24 and 168 hours (Fig. 4).

Discussion

Plasma glucose becomes elevated after stress in many species of fish, including

lamprey. The first experiment indicated that radio tagged lamprey did not recover from the stress

of surgery and surgical implantation until day 4. The results of experiment 1B, suggest that radio

tagged lamprey are physiologically different than control fish. The radio tags may have changed

the metabolic rate in radio tagged lamprey.

Swimming performance of radio tagged lamprey was significantly different than controlsimmediately after surgery; however, fish tested at one day and seven days after tag implantationindicated no difference. Oxygen consumption between control and tagged fish was significantlydifferent one hour after surgery. The recovery was faster in control compared to tagged lamprey. There was no difference in oxygen consumption between control and tagged lamprey at 24 and168 hours after surgery. The performance tests of adult radio tagged lamprey suggest thatrecovery after being surgically implanted radio tags takes a minimum of 24 hours. These resultssuggest that 7.4 g tags do have an immediate impact on Pacific lamprey, but the effects arereduced by 24 hours. However, glucose did recover to control levels by day four. The resultssuggest holding tagged lamprey a minimum of 24 hours before release; however, the conservativeamount of time as indicated by glucose would be 4 days. The results of the long-term effects ofradio tags on adult lamprey suggest there is a difference between tagged and untagged fish. Thismay be due to a change in metabolic rate in the fish. Caution should be excersized in makinginferences to the larger population of lamprey.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Craig Foster and his staff of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlifefor facilitating our collection of adult lamprey at Willamette Falls. Chris Lorion, Wilfrido

93

Contreras, and Clifford Pereira of the Oregon State University provided excellent advice andassistance on the project.

References

Wedemeyer, G.A. and W.T. Yasutake (1977). Clinical methods for the assessment of

environmental stress on fish health. U.S. Tech. Paper U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv.

89, 1-18. Washington, D.C.

Cech, J.J. 1990. Respirometry. Pages 335-356 in C.B. Schreck and P.B. Moyle, editors.

Methods for fish biology. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

94

95

96

97

98

Documents

January 1997 PACIFIC LAMPREY RESEARCH AND RESTORATION ANNUAL